Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): [The landlord] is not subject to liability to invitees of the lessee who come upon the premises for a business purpose other than that for which they are open to the public, as in the case of a truck driver delivering provisions to a restaurant. The lessor is not liable to licensees of the , lessee who come for another purpose, as in the case of the friend of the restaurant keeper who comes to pay a social call. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 359 comment e (1965). ¶20 Courts in other jurisdictions have cited this comment in declining to impose liability on owner-landlords for injuries suffered on their leased premises by ■tradesmen who came onto the premises at the behest of the tenant for work-related activities. See Rollo v. Kansas City, 857 F.Supp. 1441, 1443-45 (D.Kan.1994) (<HOLDING>); Horstman v. Glatt, 436 S.W.2d 639, 641, 643 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a landlords duty for injuries sustained on leased premises where the landlord is aware that the premises are leased with intent to admit the public (B) holding that abandonment requires that tenant vacate the leased premises (C) holding that signs placed on the inside of a leased space were not alone sufficient to provide notice of control of any part of the premises by anyone other than the debtor (D) holding under kansas law that a plumber who was injured while inspecting the leased premises in order to prepare an estimate for plumbing work had not entered the premises for the purpose for which they were leased and thus could not rely on the public use exception (E) 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
Output (English): holding that abandonment requires that tenant vacate the leased premises