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.

[EX Q]: good or replace the loss caused by the wrong or injury * * Black's Law Dictionary 390 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added); see also Restatement (Second) Torts 903 (defining compensatory damages as "damages awarded to a person as compensation, indemnity or restitution for harm sustained by him"); Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 463 (3rd ed. 1961) (defining compensatory damages as "damages awarded to make good or compensate for an injury sus tained distinguished from punitive damages "). When civil rights plaintiffs seek "damages for violations of constitutional rights, the level of damages is ordinarily determined according to principles derived from the common law of torts." Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 306, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 2542, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (<HOLDING>). "Punitive damages aside, damages in tort
Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages (B) holding that punitive damages which are based on the same underlying action justifying nondischargeability of compensatory damages are likewise nondischargeable (C) holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated (D) holding that damages based on the abstract value of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in action under civil rights act of 1871 (E) holding that damages based on the abstract value or importance of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in such cases
[EX A]: holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages

[EX Q]: claim because "she was not diligent in preserving her legal rights"); Felty, 818 F.2d at 1129 ("One who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence.") (quoting Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)); United States ex rel. Cogifer, S.A. v. Ins. Co. of North Am., Civ. A. No. 86-183-NN, 1987 WL 19932, at *4 (E.D.Va. Oct. 15, 1987) (unpublished). 11 . See, e.g., Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450-51 (7th Cir. 1990). 12 . See, e.g., Humble Oil, 402 F.2d at 896 (finding equitable estoppel where surety reneged on promise to pay after statute of limitations had run). 13 . See, e.g., United States ex rel. Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 436 F.2d 1366, 1371 (10th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Atlas Erection Co. v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation (B) holding that an agreement which required the submission of an affidavit of payment to subcontractors or lien waivers before payment was made by the general contractor was for the direct benefit of the subcontractors (C) holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors (D) holding that estoppel applied where surety repeatedly responded to subcontractors threats to sue with answers which assured them that amicable settlement was just around the corner (E) holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety
[EX A]: holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation

[EX Q]: warnings about the dangers of working with those materials; failed to provide El-sey with appropriate safety equipment, such as a breathing apparatus, to prevent the inhalation of carcinogens; and failed to take other appropriate safety precautions. These allegations are directed to an employer's duty to use ordinary care in providing a safe workplace, not a duty arising from the special knowledge, education, and training of a licensed professional engineer. See Elwood, 197 S.W.3d at 794; see also Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell, 867 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex.1993) ("The standard of conduct required of the employer is ordinary care based on general negligence principles."); Kroger Co. v. Milanes, 474 S.W.3d 321, 335 (Tex.A 2013 WL 6795390, at *5 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); with UOP, L.L.C. v. Kozak, No.
Holding statements: (A) holding that elevator rider who asserted premisesliability claims against professional engineering firm that provided management services to premises owner was not required to provide certificate of merit because claims as alleged did not clearly arise out of the provision of professional engineering services (B) holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify (C) holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment (D) holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights (E) holding that homebuyers claims against professional engineering firm acting as thirdparty inspector did not did not implicate the practice of engineering
[EX A]:
holding that elevator rider who asserted premisesliability claims against professional engineering firm that provided management services to premises owner was not required to provide certificate of merit because claims as alleged did not clearly arise out of the provision of professional engineering services