Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as in his judgment, properly exercised, the case must have appeared to require; in other words that he neglected the proper treatment from inattention and carelessness.” Morrill v. Tilney, 128 N.H. 773, 779-80 (1986); see RSA 508:13 (1997). Due care, howeve 9) (noting “error in judgment” language is basically ambiguous and subjective); Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass’n, 465 A.2d 294, 303 (Conn. 1983) (noting “bona fide error in Judgment” instruction confusing because it implies only an error in judgment made in bad faith actionable); Ouellette by Ouellette v. Subak, 391 N.W.2d 810, 816 (Minn. 1986) (rejecting “honest error in judgment” instruction as inappropriately imposing subjective language when defining standard of care); Riggins v. Mauriello, 603 A.2d 827, 830-31 (Del. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Parodi v. Washoe Medical Ctr., 892 P.2d 588, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given (B) holding mere error of judgment instruction permits jury to incorrectly conclude physician may not be liable even if negligent (C) holding that even though the governments conduct may have been negligent or even grossly negligent it did not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct (D) recognizing that a party that objects to a jury instruction before the jury retires may challenge the instruction on appeal (E) holding that any error in trial courts comparative negligence instruction was harmless where the jury found that both defendants were not negligent
Output (English): holding that even though the governments conduct may have been negligent or even grossly negligent it did not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct