context: This means that the defendant must have "specifically and deliberately undertaken the duty"; and that the party, on whose behalf the duty is being undertaken, must "relinquish control of the obligation".
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 948 N.E.2d 359, 359-60
citation_a.parenthetical: "the party who adopts the duty must be acting 'in lieu of the original party"
citation_a.sentence: Griffin, 948 N.E.2d at 359-60 (“the party who adopts the duty must be acting ‘in lieu of the original party”); Marks v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 954 N.E.2d 948, 955 (Ind.App.2011); Bd. of Comm’rs of Monroe Cty v. Hatton, 427 N.E,2d 696, 699-700 (Ind.App.1981) (“precisely what has been undertaken must be determined because liability is no broader than the actual duty assumed”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 893 N.E.2d 1100, 1106
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that the issue of control, specifically whether the defendant exercised "control or active supervision of safety at the job site", is determinative in cases involving a common law duty of safety at a workplace
citation_b.sentence: See also Peterson v. Ponda, 893 N.E.2d 1100, 1106 (Ind.App.2008) (noting that the issue of control, specifically whether the defendant exercised “control or active supervision of safety at the job site”, is determinative in cases involving a common law duty of safety at a workplace).