and had played inside another partially constructed house a short time earlier. A jury could infer from this evidence that the partially completed house was attractive to the children. Where differing inferences can be drawn from undisputed facts, summary judgment is inappropriate. See American Motorists, 463 N.E.2d at 1146. The fourth element is whether the owner knows that children do or are likely to trespass upon his property and be injured or whether the facts alleged are such as to charge the owner with constructive knowledge. We have previously held that summary judgment is inappropriate where the question remains whether the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. See Golba v. Kohl’s Dept. Store, Inc., 585 N.E.2d 14, 16 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The Carrolls
holding the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition a wet floor in the second floor hallway because snow and sleet regularly accumulated there in periods of inclement weather holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding plaintiff can prove foreseeability by showing the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the assailants violent nature recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge holding that in the absence of undisputed evidence the issues of whether a store in a slipandfall case had actual or constructive knowledge of an item on the floor is a question reserved for the jury