Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): was in control of the premises when and where the accident occurred. McCraney v. Gibson, 952 N.E.2d 284, 288 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Yates v. Johnson County Bd. of Comm’rs, 888 N.E.2d 842, 847 (Ind.Ct.App.2008)), trans. denied. This rule is meant to impose liability upon the party who could have known of any dangers on the land and could have acted to prevent any foreseeable harm. Id. (quoting Beta Steel, 830 N.E.2d at 70). Although duty usually presents a question of law, whether a duty exists in premises liability cases may depend upon resolution of underlying facts by the trier of fact, including questions regarding who controlled the property at the time and place of an accident. Id. (quoting Yates, 888 N.E.2d at 847); see also Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382, 386 (Ind.2004) (<HOLDING>). Whether there has been possession and control 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (B) holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim (C) holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate (D) holding there was genuine issue of material fact to be decided by jury as to who controlled property at time and place of accident for purposes of premises liability duty (E) holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment
Output (English): holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim