J
Jason Friedman
I am receiving lines like this:
Accordingly, this element has largely given way in modern cases to a less =
rigid formulation: that the evidence eliminates, to a sufficient degree, =
other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third=
parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of =
control must be such that the likelihood of injury was, more likely than =
not, the result of the defendant's negligence.
I want the original:
Accordingly, this element has largely given way in modern cases to a less
rigid formulation: that the evidence eliminates, to a sufficient degree,
other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third
parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of
control must be such that the likelihood of injury was, more likely than
not, the result of the defendant's negligence.
I know I can create a new list and iterate over the input lines, but was
wondering if there is a one-liner lurking in here?
Accordingly, this element has largely given way in modern cases to a less =
rigid formulation: that the evidence eliminates, to a sufficient degree, =
other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third=
parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of =
control must be such that the likelihood of injury was, more likely than =
not, the result of the defendant's negligence.
I want the original:
Accordingly, this element has largely given way in modern cases to a less
rigid formulation: that the evidence eliminates, to a sufficient degree,
other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third
parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of
control must be such that the likelihood of injury was, more likely than
not, the result of the defendant's negligence.
I know I can create a new list and iterate over the input lines, but was
wondering if there is a one-liner lurking in here?