Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): vehicle cases under the [Policitical Subdivisions Tort Claim] Act has been the involvement of the motor vehicles as motor vehicles in accidents. In no cited case has a waiver to immunity been found where the plaintiff has alleged the sole involvement of the governmental motor vehicle lay in carrying a passenger to an area for discharge that the governmental agency knew or should have known was unsafe. The Complaint alleges the bus driver did nothing wrong other than allowing [appellant] to leave the bus in a certain place. The Comp ne whether Paula Jo Lehman continued to be an “occupant” of the bus after she had alighted from the bus and was crossing the street behind the bus to get to her school. See Walker v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 323 Pa.Super. 427, 470 A.2d 993 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Assuming, without deciding, that she was no 
 Holding statements: (A) holding port authority required to provide basic loss benefits under section 204a4 of nofault act regardless of whether passenger continued to be occupant as bus was involved in an accident when passenger struck by passing vehicle after alighting from bus (B) holding police incident to arrest of occupant of automobile may search entire passenger compartment of vehicle (C) holding that ttcas motorvehicle waiver did not apply to claim whose gravamen was that bus drivers failure to supervise the public  by for example failing to supervise tortfeasor passenger and failing to return to pick up victim passenger  allowed tortfeasor who had threatened victim on bus to assault victim after both had exited (D) holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle (E) holding that fourth amendment rights of a passenger of a legally stopped vehicle were not violated by police officers instruction that he remain inside the vehicle during traffic stop after passenger repeatedly tried to exit
Output (English): holding that ttcas motorvehicle waiver did not apply to claim whose gravamen was that bus drivers failure to supervise the public  by for example failing to supervise tortfeasor passenger and failing to return to pick up victim passenger  allowed tortfeasor who had threatened victim on bus to assault victim after both had exited