Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): summary judgment favoring Defendant eliminated that duty. {13} The question of duty in the present case cannot, however, be resolved simply by reciting the general rules that Plaintiffs assert control. The question is whether the undisputed material facts are sufficient to establish that from the point of Haar’s missed appointments after March 8, 2000, to the point of Haar’s death, Defendant continued to have a duty of care to treat Haar in a manner that would protect against Haar’s suicide. Plaintiffs’ argument assumes that Defendant did have that duty. The district court did not think so. Neither do we. {14} “The general rule is that a person does not have a duty to act affirmatively to protect another person from harm.” Lee v. Corregedore, 83 Hawai'i 154, 925 P.2d 324, 329 (1996) (<HOLDING>); see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error (B) holding a psychotherapist had no duty for the suicide of a patient in a noncustodial setting (C) holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his clients interrogatory answers without the clients knowledge (D) holding that counselors had no duty to prevent suicides of noncustodial clients (E) holding no legal duty exists to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts
Output (English): holding no legal duty exists to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts