Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that I should wear my dust mask or respirator after I mixed [and sprayed] the product, [when] I could see little, if any, dust in the air.”). Mr. Headley’s declaration answers this question by stating that, were such information given, he would have worn the dust mask/respirator for the entire day, rather than the usual five hours per day he usually wore it. Dkt. No. 78 at 2, ¶ 3 (Headley Deck). At the very least, genuine factual disputes exist regarding whether Mr. Headley knew, or was ever made properly aware by Ferro, that breathing silica was possible even when the air appeared clear, as well as whether a warning indicating as much would have affected his safety decisions. See, e.g., Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wash.2d 747, 755-756, 818 P.2d 1337, 1341 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 3. Summary Judgment Is Improper on the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search (B) holding that plaintiffs contention that had they been warned of the dangers of aspirating baby oil the accident would have been avoided satisfied the requirements of rcw  7720301b (C) holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled (D) holding admissible certain evidence which would not have been obtained but for violations of constitutional requirements (E) holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
Output (English): holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible