Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): physical boundaries of his property when harm reaching outside those boundaries is foreseeable.” Id. In Almarante, the plaintiff was struck and injured by a motorcycle while crossing a highway that ran between two school dormitory buildings that she frequented as a student. Id. at 704. The defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that it had no legal duty to provide a reasonably safe passage across property that it did not own. Id. The Almarante court held that plaintiffs complaint stated a valid cause of action because the school created a foreseeable zone of danger for its students by building its dormitory on either side of a busy highway without taking steps to ensure their safe passage. Id. at 705; see also Bailey Drainage Dist. v. Stark, 526 So.2d 678, 682 (Fla.1988) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Gunlock v. Gill Hotels Co., 622 So.2d 163, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger (B) holding that even if overgrown brush causing a dangerous condition for passing motorists was located on privately owned property so that removal is not an option the defendant still has a duty to warn of the danger (C) recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge (D) holding that engineering firm whose work was dictated by and complied with contractual specifications had no duty to warn of dangerous condition on premises (E) holding that no abandonment of property as homestead was shown merely because after house located on property was destroyed in hurricane debtor had quit premises allowed property to become overgrown with weeds and posted a for sale sign
Output (English): holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger