Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): comment g. In addition, “an invitee may anticipate that the premises are reasonably safe for his intended use.” Page, J., THE LAW OF PREMISES LIABILITY, § 4.16, 94 (1976). ■ Our opinions in Tribe, supra, Coburn, supra, and Beach, supra, have evidently failed to clarify our views of the duty problem. We therefore summarize the relevant principles. 1. The question of duty is decided by the court. The question is whether the relationship of the parties was such that the defendant was under an obligation to use some care to avoid or prevent injury to the plaintiff. If the answer is no, the defendant is not liable even though he may have acted negligently in light of the foreseeable risks. Prosser, supra, § 53, at 356-359; see, also, Keckonen v. Robles, 146 Ariz. 268, 705 P.2d 945 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In the context of this case, therefore, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a business owner owes the duty to his guests to exercise reasonable care to protect them from injury at the hands of a fellow guest (B) holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa (C) holding that a negligent host was under no duty of care to the victim injured by an automobile driven by an intoxicated guest (D) holding that a talk show host did not owe a cognizable duty to protect a guest on the show from the homicidal acts of third parties (E) holding automobile exclusion in general liability policy did not apply because plaintiffs claim of negligent supervision and training was a separate and distinct theory of recovery from the use of an automobile
Output (English): holding automobile exclusion in general liability policy did not apply because plaintiffs claim of negligent supervision and training was a separate and distinct theory of recovery from the use of an automobile