TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: law did not authorize the arresting officer to require Turbyne to take a breath test when the blood test was unavailable. Gillett, 629 P.2d at 619 n. 10. Nor do our decisions in Gillett and Riley construe the statute as allowing the police to compel a different test when extraordinary circumstances prevent administration of the driver-selected test. The good cause exception we established in those cases applies to excuse the judicial sanction of dismissal of the charges when the police are prevented in circumstances beyond their control from administering the driver-selected test. As Shinaut and Dike demonstrate, when a driver selected to take the chemical test not initially selected, he or she may have voluntarily consented to the search of his or her person. Shinaut, 940 P.2d at 384 (<HOLDING>). When the controlling facts are undisputed, as 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation (B) holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness (C) holding that a person must request a reasonable accommodation before he has been terminated he cannot wait until he is terminated and then months later  request reinstatement and demand a reasonable accommodation (D) holding that erroneous accommodation of a citizens request by a police officer does not warrant the sanction of excluding evidence (E) holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada

SOLUTION: holding that teachers request for four months leave was not a reasonable accommodation

PROBLEM: and seeking to dismiss the four new claims asserted against them in the amended complaint. Also on January 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a supplemental motion to dismiss [26], addressing the new claims against it and renewing its request that all counts be dismissed. II. Discussion The Court must determine whether: (1) Giscombe eliminated the deficiencies of his previous shotgun pleading, and (2) if so, whether the complaint should be dismissed for the other reasons asserted by ABN, Citimortgage, and Wells Fargo in their motions to dismiss. A. Legal Standard The sufficiency of Giscombe’s amended complaint depends on whether it is a shotgun pleading; if so, it will fall short of the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284-85 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The defining characteristic of a shotgun 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure (B) holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in  1983 litigation (C) holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted (D) holding that the fact that federal rule of civil procedure 9b requires a heightened pleading standard for some claims but not for a section 1983 claim against a municipality means that the rules do not require a heightened pleading standard for such a claim (E) holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure

SOLUTION: recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure

PROBLEM: consumer. An explosion occurred and the distributors/manu facturers were sued. That court held that the distributors of bulk propane to a retailer had no independent duty to warn the ultimate consumer. Rather, the distributor had only a duty to insure that the retailer was knowledgeable regarding the dangers and was able to warn the ultimate buyers. Thus, a seller of bulk propane can delegate to the retailer its duty to warn the ultimate consumer. Furthermore, the bulk seller has no duty to warn the retailer of the dangers of a product if that retailer is already aware "through common knowledge or learning" of a specific hazard. Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 A.D.2d 55, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (1980); Parkinson v. California Co., 255 F.2d 265 (10th Cir. 1958) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, respondent could rely on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution (B) holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present (C) recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known (D) holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community (E) holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers

SOLUTION:
holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution