court granted the concrete subcontractor's motion for summary judgment, finding, in part, that the concrete. subcontractor owed no duty to the employee. Id. On appeal, we agreed and held that premises liability was inapplicable because the concrete subcontractor was not a landowner or occupier of the premises. Id. at 1201. We also held that a duty did not exist because "it was not reasonably foreseeable that [the employee] would be injured due to [the concrete subcontractor's] act of leaving the concrete on the ground at the job site." Id. at 1202. We agree that, as in Woods, a duty is not created based upon premises liability because Guy's Concrete and Modern were not landowners or occupiers of the premises. See, eg., Duffy v. Ben Dee, Inc., 651 N.E.2d 320, 323-324 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (<HOLDING>), reh'g de-mied, trans. denied. However, in the
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 a premises owner is a general contractor for purposes of the statutory employer provision holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road 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 holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties