Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the piling of wires next to the staircases “arguably did not create an unreasonable risk of harm.” The trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment as to the elements of duty and breach. ¶ 12. We disagree. Given plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not see the wire in the stairs before she tripped, and defendant’s admissions that the area was poorly lit, covered in debris, and unsecured, a reasonable jury could conclude that either the danger was not open and obvious or that defendant should have foreseen the harm even if the danger was obvious. Thus, a jury could find that defendant had a duty to make the condition safe or warn plaintiff of the danger, and that he breached this duty. Cf. Menard, 174 Vt. at 479-80, 806 A.2d at 1005-07 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff also testified as to the elements 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support an inference of constructive notice where plaintiff who slipped on an unknown substance could not say that the substance was placed there by employees of defendant that its presence was known to them or that it was there for an appreciable time before accident (B) holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law (C) 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 (D) holding defendants not liable for negligence under either an invitee or licensee standard where danger of spiral staircase was obvious to plaintiff defendants had installed a guardrail area was welllit and there was no foreign substance on the stairs (E) holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger
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