Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): estate professionals, bankers, appraisers and prospective buyers often view property while it is under construction." Appellant's Appendix at 18. We agree. It was reasonably foreseeable that other construction workers, prospective buyers, and other necessary professionals would be visiting the construction site. Further, it was reasonably foreseeable that a person would step on the Celotex. Guy's Concrete and Modern were performing work and had some control over the opening to the basement and the Celo-tex. Further, Dawn was rightfully on the premises. Consequently, Guy's Concrete and Modern owed a duty of care to Dawn, and the trial court did not err by denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Guy's Concrete and Modern on this issue. See, eg., Blake, 674 N.E.2d at 170-173 (<HOLDING>). II. Proximate Cause The next issue is whether 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (B) holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues (C) holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate (D) holding that summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials prevented inmate from filing grievances (E) holding that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the contractor where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a duty to an injured construction worker
Output (English): holding that summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials prevented inmate from filing grievances