Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Delgado Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 915. Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if it could persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the validity of the plaintiff’s claim. Delgado Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 915. Generally, parties have a duty to read the contracts they sign. And a party who has limited knowledge — but treats that limited knowledge as sufficient — bears the risk of any mistake. Tiegs v. Boise Cascade Corp., 83 Wn. App. 411, 426, 922 P.2d 115 (1996); Bennett, 108 Wn.2d at 395. Accordingly, although no Washington case has dealt di rectly with this issue, the general rule adopted by other jurisdictions is that a person who signs a contract written in an unfamiliar language must attempt to have the contract explained or bears the risk of mistake: A good, and 927 (1972) (<HOLDING>). A more complicated issue arises, however, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs with limited proficiency in english could not avoid personal injury release noting plaintiffs could have had englishspeaking daughter translate it (B) holding that if plaintiffs could not establish that the particular agent orange causing injury to the plaintiff was manufactured by that defendant then the burden would shift to each defendant to establish that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury or alternatively that it should only be responsible for a proportion of the damage (C) holding that a plaintiffs belief that a product could fail in the future is not without more a legal injury sufficient to support plaintiffs claim (D) holding that free special education services provided by state to plaintiffs child in order to cope with needs caused by personal injuries are collateral source and that defendants could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits (E) holding that a plaintiffs experts differential diagnosis must at least consider other factors that could have been the sole cause of the plaintiffs injury
Output (English): holding that if plaintiffs could not establish that the particular agent orange causing injury to the plaintiff was manufactured by that defendant then the burden would shift to each defendant to establish that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury or alternatively that it should only be responsible for a proportion of the damage