(Ohio Ct.App. 3rd 2005) (not designated for publication) (finding fact issue as to whether former plant owner was negligent in its design, fabrication, and installation of support platform). B. The distinction between negligent activity and premises defect liability governs an owner or controller’s liability In its second issue on rehearing, Occidental argues that Jenkins’s injury was caused by an unreasonably dangerous premises condition and therefore will only support a premises liability claim. Occidental invokes the distinction between premises defect liability and negligent activity liability — two distinct categories of negligence liability a premises owner or controller may have, which are governed by different liability standar (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Thomson v. Espey Huston & Assocs., Inc., 899
holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor holding that an international relief organization owed no duty to protect aid contractor from murder by thirdparty somalis holding that a contractor had no duty of care to a third party under a premises liability theory because the contractor was not a landowner or occupier but expressing no opinion as to whether the contractor owed a duty to the third party under general negligence principles because the third partys legal theory was restricted to premises liability holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee