law. Whether Guy's Conerete's conduct is the proximate cause of Dawn's injuries is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Genuine issues of material fact exist and summary judgment would not have been appropriate on this issue. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motions for summary judgment filed by Guy's Concrete - and Modern. - Affirmed. BARNES and RILEY, JJ., concur. 1 . We direct Modern's attention to Ind.App. Rule 46(A)(10) which requires an appellant's brief to "include e Webb analysis because our supreme court and this court have already held that contractors performing work owe a duty to third persons rightfully on the construction premises. See, e.g., Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep't of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970, 977 (Ind.2001) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Modern also appears to argue that its
holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea holding that it was unnecessary to engage in the threepart webb test to determine if the school had some other additional duty because our supreme court had already declared the nature of the duty a school owes its students holding that since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student