Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): property owners and others to open their lands to recreational users. The Ward court found, under the agreement, the landowner did not delegate to the defendant the power to control entry to the land. Holding that “[a] grant of immunity to the [defendant] would not serve the underlying purpose of the recreational use statute,” the court concluded the defendant was not an occupant under the act. Id., 890 P.2d at 1147. While discussing other jurisdictions’ decisions, the Ward court emphasized that “[t]he relationship of an entity to the premises, not the length and stability of its presence, should primarily determine whether the entity ‘occupies’ the premises” under the statute. Id., 890 P.2d at 1148. See also Tennyson v. Plum Creek Timber Co., 73 Wash.App. 550, 872 P.2d 524 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Adams v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 191 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that where a coworker commits an intentional tort not related to the interests of the employer  the policies behind the act would not be served by immunizing the coemployee (C) holding prior act testimony admissible to establish the identity behind an alias (D) holding that extending immunity to contractors under the act would not further the purpose behind the act (E) holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective
Output (English): holding that where a coworker commits an intentional tort not related to the interests of the employer  the policies behind the act would not be served by immunizing the coemployee