With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as a matter of law. This issue is best determined by the trier of fact following a thorough consideration of all of the relevant facts and surrounding circumstances. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to both House and Pepper on this issue. 10 . Because the majority disposed of the issue of negligence by concluding that Collins's claim failed on the proximate cause element, it did not resolve the issue of whether House and Pepper had a duty to Collins under these facts. Considering the provisions in the hospital’s contracts with House and Pepper regarding housekeeping, safety, and OSHA standards, I would hold that both House and Pepper had a contractual duty to Collins to keep House's work areas clean. See Perryman, 628 N.E.2d at 1244 (<HOLDING>). 11 . Although I do not think the manner in

A: holding that where the contract affirmatively shows the parties intent to charge one party with a duty of care actionable negligence may be predicated upon that contractual duty
B: 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
C: holding tort of negligence must be based upon duty other that one imposed by contract
D: holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty
A.