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.
Problem:that I should wear my dust mask or respirator after I mixed [and sprayed] the product, [when] I could see little, if any, dust in the air."). Mr. Headley's declaration answers this question by stating that, were such information given, he would have worn the dust mask/respirator for the entire day, rather than the usual five hours per day he usually wore it. Dkt. No. 78 at 2, 3 (Headley Deck). At the very least, genuine factual disputes exist regarding whether Mr. Headley knew, or was ever made properly aware by Ferro, that breathing silica was possible even when the air appeared clear, as well as whether a warning indicating as much would have affected his safety decisions. See, e.g., Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wash.2d 747, 755-756, 818 P.2d 1337, 1341 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 3. Summary Judgment Is Improper on the
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search (B) holding that plaintiffs contention that had they been warned of the dangers of aspirating baby oil the accident would have been avoided satisfied the requirements of rcw 7720301b (C) holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled (D) holding admissible certain evidence which would not have been obtained but for violations of constitutional requirements (E) holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
Solution:
holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search