Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): opportunity to view the defendant); Lewisohn v. State, 433 A.2d 351, 355 (Me.1981) (concluding, in hab .2d 517, 522-23 (App.1982) (concluding, in a personal injury action arising from a fall at a roller skating rink, that the trial court properly admitted testimony of two lay witnesses, who 'were experienced skaters present on the night of the accident, regarding safety procedures used by the defendant on the night of the accident); Lee v. State, 661 P.2d 1345, 1354-55 (Okla.Crim.App.1983) (concluding that an investigating police officer could testify that spots on a carpet were blood, and that a chemist, testifying on other matters, could offer a lay opinion that the type of glass found at a murder location was safety glass); Williamson v. O’Neill, 696 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). 11 . For example, in United States v. Myers, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding section 3877160 clearly limits the amount of coverage which may be stacked from policies on vehicles not involved in the accident to an amount no greater than the coverage of the vehicle involved in that accident (B) holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident (C) holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person (D) holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital (E) holding that the driver of a tractortrailer rig a codefendant in a personal injury lawsuit arising froman autotruck accident was uniquely qualified as the experienced driver of the rig involved in the accident to offer a lay opinion as to the reason the trailer separated from the tractor since his opinion would be rationally based on his firsthand perceptions of the accident and would help determine causation
Output (English): holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident