Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): employees and hiring security guards. We conclude that this showing was sufficient to raise triable disputes of fact as to foreseeability and duty. See Williams v. Utica Coll. of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d at 117-18 (construing New York precedent “to indicate that even a few past incidents spaced over a few years may, in appropriate circumstances, be enough to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the relevant criminal activity was foreseeable”); Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519-20, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 613-14, 407 N.E.2d 451 (1980) (concluding that rational jury could find from history of criminal activity in other parts of building that criminal incident in the lobby was “significant, foreseeable possibility”); Stevens v. Kirby, 86 A.D.2d at 394, 450 N.Y.S.2d at 610 (<HOLDING>). 2. Breach “[T]he owner of a public 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties (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 injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs (E) holding that jury could conclude from prior incidents involving breaches of the peace  that the assault in the parking lot was a significant foreseeable possibility which defendant had a duty to guard against
Output (English): holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties