Detailed Instructions: 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.
Q: the district court lacked authority to transfer the case elsewhere; when venue is proper in multiple counties, the plaintiff may choose where to file and the district court lacks the discretion to transfer the case pursuant to rule 1.808. See id.. If venue was not proper in Johnson County, we must decide whether it was proper in Grundy County. Id. To answer the foregoing questions, we must apply the various provisions of Iowa Code chapter 616. Id. We first analyze Iowa Code section 616.17, our general venue statute. We then consider two specific venue provisions, which the parties variously claim have applicability in this case. A. Iowa Code 616.17 In Iowa, there is a long-standing preference for trying cases in the county of a defendant's residence. Tull v. Honda Res 90 (1885) (<HOLDING>). Here venue was proper in both Story and Polk
Holding statements: (A) holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim (B) holding that it could not disregard the express pleadings alleging negligence by specific parties (C) holding a negligence action arising out of an allterrain vehicle accident was a personal action (D) holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action (E) holding petition alleging negligence was a personal action
A:
holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim