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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: claimant was injured while exiting an elevator in a parking garage which was not owned or maintained by her employer. However, the claimant's employer instructed her to park in certain designated spaces which it leased in the garage. Because the employer leased the parking spaces from the garage operator and presumably could pressure the garage operator to keep the facility in a safe condition, Pierson held that there was "sufficient indicia of em ployer control to support the ... conclusion that the [employer] should be responsible for the effects of an injury to an employee which occurred in the garage." 987 S.W.2d at 318. Since the claimant was utilizing a reasonable means to walk from her parking space to her employer when she fell, she zona, 142 Ariz. 501, 690 P.2d 802 (App.1984)(<HOLDING>); Larson's Workers' Compensation Law,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees (B) holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs (C) holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer (D) holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot (E) holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties

Output: (D)

Input: Consider Input: is limited in applicability to only cases, like this one, in which the total noneconomic damages awarded by the jury were in excess of both of the $250,000 caps and in excess of the $500,000 combined total of both applicable caps; the jury here awarded $1,725,000 in noneconomic damages. 29 . Chesser argues that because a jointly and severally liable defendant possesses a right of contribution, the statutory provisions at issue do not conflict. A right of contribution, however, presupposes that the defendant has actually paid the damages that is, has already been civilly liable for noneconomic damages in excess of the $250,000 cap applicable to that defendant, in violation of the express language of section 74.301(b). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. 33.015(a), (b) (West 2008) (<HOLDING>). 30 . Appellees concede that Hospital remains
Holding statements: (A) recognizing a right to contribution (B) recognizing that prior to 1949 when the statute permitting contribution among joint tortfeasors was enacted no right of contribution existed between jointtortfeasors in delaware (C) recognizing contribution in the appropriate case (D) recognizing in both subsections a right of contribution when a defendant has paid a percentage of damages greater than his percentage of responsibility (E) recognizing right of contribution against joint tortfeasor where release is obtained on his behalf

Output: (D)

Input: Consider Input: dissent calls attention to the proper role which Congress should be filling (but has failed to fill) in providing the proper guidelines for jurisdictional determinations in the unincorporated, non-trust entity context. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 198-199, 110 S.Ct. at 1022-23 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). It is obvious that clearer, more appropriate guidelines must be dictated for diversity jurisdiction determinations in contexts such as this, either by Congress or by the Supreme Court. The issue of how to categorize Lloyd's syndicates for jurisdictional purposes has not yet been addressed by the Third Circuit. The Sixth Circuit, on the other hand, has addressed the issue of citizenship of a Lloyd's syndicate. See Certain Interested Underwriters v. Layne, 26 F.3d 39 (6th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). While the decision of the Sixth Circuit is
Holding statements: (A) holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction (B) holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal (C) holding that by applying the real party in interest test in conjunction with tennessees law concerning suits involving principal and agent only the underwriters should be included for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction (D) recognizing that a narrow reading of missouri would suggest that the state is the real party in interest for diversity purposes only when the relief sought inures to the benefit of the state alone but noting that cases have only required a real interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the litigation (E) holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
Output: (C)