Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that may be imputed to a governmental entity as the act of the entity's servant comes within § 893.80). ¶ 38. The principles of immunity for particular types of agents under Wis. Stat. § 893.80, as discussed in Kettner, should be read in harmony with the Lyons test and with the principles of governmental immunity enunciated in § 893.80(4). For example, the allegation in Lyons that the bridge was improperly designed by the governmental contractor, who undertook the design at the direction of the governmental entity, was the act of a § 893.80(4)-type agent because the governmental entity controlled the design choice and design choices are legislative or quasi-legislative functions. See Lyons, 207 Wis. 2d at 452-58; see also Chart v. Dvorak, 57 Wis. 2d 92, 100-01, 203 N.W.2d 673 (1973) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 39. However, if the allegation in Lyons 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a construction lender may voluntarily assume a duty to inspect the construction project for the borrowers benefit in addition to the lenders independent contractual right to inspect the project for its own exclusive benefit (B) recognizing legislative or quasilegislative nature of design decision (C) recognizing that the existence of a copy of a decision in a bill file along with numerous references to a decision of the court of appeals in the legislative history indicated that an amendment was made in response to that decision (D) recognizing that the decision to undertake a project or how to design the project may be immunized as the exercise of a legislative or quasilegislative function (E) holding that design professionals marking on pipe to indicate how it should be cut was a construction project within the meaning of a kansas statute similar to rcw 51240351
Output (English): holding that design professionals marking on pipe to indicate how it should be cut was a construction project within the meaning of a kansas statute similar to rcw 51240351