written opinion, memorandum of decision or findings of fact and conclusions thereon relating to the issues raised on appeal." 2 . Moreover, we held that the concrete subcontractor's actions were not the proximate cause of the employee's injuries. Woods, 648 N.E.2d at 1202. Rather, the intervening collapse of the scaffold, which could not have been foreseen by the concrete subcontractor, was the proximate cause of the employee's injuries. Id. 3 . Although the Crawfords mention in the complaint that Dawn was an invitee on the property, this allegation is relevant to a determination of whether Dawn was rightfully on the property. See infra. 4 . Guy's Concrete and Modern analyze the duty issue by using our supreme court's three-part analysis set forth in Webb. See Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 995 (<HOLDING>). However, it is unnecessary for us to perform
holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable holding that in determining whether a duty exists a court should consider the following factors 1 the reasonable foreseeability of injury 2 the reasonable likelihood of injury 3 the magnitude of the burden that guarding against injury places on the defendant and 4 the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant emphasis added holding that in determining whether to impose a duty the following factors must be balanced 1 the relationship between the parties 2 the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured and 3 public policy concerns holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely if ever can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowners premises holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place