Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): floor bathroom prior to the date Phillips fell. Riley understood the reason for the water was due to “some type of plumbing problem.” Riley stated there was a problem with the plumbing in the first floor bathroom “at least every other month.” Riley further stated that every time he was in the bathroom, it was “sloppy, with water on the floor and water on the counter. I have never seen it in a clean condition.” Phillips argued a genuine dispute existed as to the element of knowledge because this evidence established that “the maintenance crew knew that the bathroom' in question had had plumbing issues in the past, and had on more than one prior occasion, cleaned up and fixed said plumbing issues.” See Zacher v. Missouri Real Estate & Ins. Agency, Inc., 393 S.W.2d 446, 448-49 (Mo. 1965) (<HOLDING>); Braun, 907 S.W.2d at 374 (holding the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a puddle of water that had accumulated on a bank floor on a rainy day 20 minutes after the bank opened (B) recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge (C) holding the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition a wet floor in the second floor hallway because snow and sleet regularly accumulated there in periods of inclement weather (D) holding that in the absence of undisputed evidence the issues of whether a store in a slipandfall case had actual or constructive knowledge of an item on the floor is a question reserved for the jury (E) holding that absent any actual evidence of injury the plaintiffs allegations were too vague to establish the jurisdictional floor for damages
Output (English): holding that absent any actual evidence of injury the plaintiffs allegations were too vague to establish the jurisdictional floor for damages