builder for purposes of the tour. Id. Here, similarly, the mere fact that McCamment owned the premises is not dispositive of the question of possession or control and the resulting duty of care to Rider. Like the landowners in Reed, McCamment was not in actual possession or control of the deck when the accident occurred. Specifically, MceCamment was not in actual possession because he was not present at the construction site when Rider inspected the deck. He learned that Rider fell from the deck only after he spoke to Lee over the phone. MeceCamment also was not in control of the premises because he did not perform any work on it on the day of the accident or any other day over the course of construction. See Helton v. Harbrecht, 701 N.E.2d 1265, 1268 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, MceCamment did not control the
holding that defendant properly established that it did not owe premises liability duty because it did not own occupy or control premises where injury occurred but that defendant was not entitled to traditional summary judgment because it failed to address duty arising out of alleged creation of dangerous condition holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe holding that while a lawfully issued warrant to search premises authorizes the officers executing it to search in a reasonable manner whatever spots within the described premises their professional experience indicates may be used as a cache for the items named in the warranty such a warrant does not by its own force permit a search of the persons residents or visitorswho chance to be at the premises at the time the warrant is executed or belongings of a nonresident visitor present on the premises holding that construction company that carried general work site liability insurance did not control partiallyconstructed home at the time of accident when none of its employees had been at the site for a month holding that the builder did not owe a duty of care to the visitor because the builder did not exert control over the premises at the time of the visitors injury the builder was away from the site for approximately one month and the visitors son was actually working on the premises on the day of the accident