The opinion
BAKER, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with my colleagues that the entry of summary judgment in favor of Northeast Security was proper for the reason that there is not enough specificity in the contract to make King a third party beneficiary. However, I cannot agree that the trial court erred in.granting summary judgment for the school district.
As the majority correctly observes, our supreme court in Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224 (Ind.1999) reaffirmed the framework that was established in Campbell v. State, 259 Ind. 55 , 284 N.E.2d 738 (1972). Op. at 831-832. Specifically, the Benton court noted that governmental units have a duty to use ordinary and reasonable care under the circumstances, except for such claims as failure to prevent crime, appointment of an incompetent official, or an incorrect judicial decision. Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 230 .
It is apparent to me that the gravamen of King’s claim is that he was injured in light of the school corporation’s failure to have adequate safety personriel in the parking lot when he was injured. Thus, the Campbell exception regarding a governmental unit’s failure to prevent crime is triggered here. I acknowledge that the court must typically balance the three factors enunciated in Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind.1991), which include the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm to the injured person and public policy concerns, to determine whether a duty exists. Moreover, I do not disagree that considering these factors with respect to the circumstances before us might very well impose liability on the part of the school system. However, unless and until our supreme court abandons the Campbell exception that is relevant here, it is my view that summary judgment was properly entered for the school system. Thus, I would affirm the judgment in all respects.