Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): We distinguished Peck from Al-Hellou, noting that in Peck, the school hired the teacher specifically to work with young people, the teacher’s contact with the victim occurred on work premises, and the contact occurred precisely because “both the employee and the victim were required to be on the work premises.” Id. at 149-50 (citing Peck, 65 Wn. App. at 287). ¶49 We determined that, unlike the employer in Peck, Al-Hellou’s employer was not liable for the employee’s misconduct because (1) the employer did not hire Al-Hellou to work with people; (2) the rape did not occur on the work premises; and (3) “the job duties did not facilitate or enable Al-Hellou to commit the rape” when the victim, who did not live at the apartment building, happened to meet Al-Hellou there. Id. at 149-50 (<HOLDING>). In reaching this conclusion, we noted that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employer owes a duty to foreseeable victims to prevent the tasks premises or instrumentalities entrusted to an employee from endangering others (B) holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable (C) holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons (D) holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal (E) holding that the employer remains liable with respect to the duty regardless of the acts or omissions of the person entrusted to perform it
Output (English): holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable