activities.” Carie v. PSI Energy, Inc., 715 N.E.2d 853, 855 (Ind.1999) (quoting 7 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 3d § 1 at 483). Here, the Howards and E & B Paving opposed INDOT’s motion for summary judgment and claimed error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of the second exception: that INDOT is charged by law with performing the specific duty. Indiana cases have long recognized that governmental entities have a specific obligation with respect to public travel and have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care in the selection of persons to repair bridges and streets. See Shand Mining, Inc. v. Clay County Bd. of Comm’rs, 671 N.E.2d 477, 481 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied; City of Indianapolis v. Cauley, 164 Ind. 304, 309-10, 73 N.E. 691, 693-94 (1905) (<HOLDING>). Although a governmental entity can delegate
holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding that under either theory the duty is the same ordinary care holding that it is the legal duty of a municipality to exercise supervision over bridges under its control and to make inspection as ordinary care and diligence require holding that the principal must have control and supervision over the details of the agents work