[¶ 1.] Twelve-year-old K.V. threw a softball-size rock that struck nine-year-old G.E. in the head. The parties disagree whether the incident was an accident or intentional. The incident occurred near the intersection of three backyards in Hartford, South Dakota. One backyard belonged to the rental home of K.V.’s par*625ents, the Vitals; the second belonged to G.E.’s parents, the Englunds; and the third belonged to the Vitals’ landlord, Robert Smith. Smith owned his own home, as well as the home next door, which the Vitals rented. Following the accident, the Englunds brought suit, individually, and as guardians ad litem for G.E., against K.V., the Vitals, and Smith. The claims against Smith included negligence and negligent rental. Smith moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The Englunds appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Smith. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[¶ 2.] On July 7, 2008, twelve-year-old K.V. threw a softball-size rock that struck nine-year-old G.E. The rock struck G.E. in the forehead and her skull was severely damaged. Following the incident, G.E. was taken to the hospital where a titanium plate was inserted to repair her skull. G.E.’s parents indicated that her behavior changed as a result of her injury.1
[¶ 3.] The parties disagree as to the circumstances whereby the rock was thrown. Prior to the incident, G.E. had been playing with KV.’s younger sister, M.V. G.E. and M.V. had been building a “fort” in M.V.’s backyard. The children were not under adult supervision.2 G.E. told her mother that she was running away from K.V. because he was chasing her with a rock. G.E. further told her mother that when she turned around to see if K.V. was still chasing her, she was hit with the rock. The Englunds also allege that K.V. may have washed off the rock before going to get help. Conversely, K.V. indicated that he was throwing rocks between two trees. He reported that after he threw the rock, he noticed G.E. run out from behind one of the trees. K.V. indicated that he yelled G.E.’s name to get her attention, but that when she turned around, she was hit by the rock. The parties agree that the rock came from the landscaping located alongside the Vitals’ rental home.
[¶ 4.] At the time of the incident, G.E. and K.V. were neighbors. G.E. lived with her parents, the Englunds. K.V. lived with his parents, the Vitals. The Vitals and their landlord, Smith, lived in two separate homes directly behind the En-glunds. Smith owned his home, as well as the property next door, which he rented to the Vitals. The backyards of all three properties were unfenced. There was evidence that the children had permission to play in Smith’s backyard, which contained a swing set.
[¶ 5.] The parties disagree where the incident took place. G.E. indicated that she was on Smith’s property when she was struck and that K.V. was standing near the lot line between the Vitals’ rental property and Smith’s home. K.V. stated that G.E. was running toward the side of her house when she was struck and that he was standing in his own backyard.
[¶ 6.] K.V. also indicated that a few weeks before the accident Smith saw K.V. throwing rocks at trees. According to K.V., Smith told him not to throw rocks toward Smith’s house. The Englunds claim that Smith knew of KV.’s propensity for rock throwing and that Smith agreed to remove the landscaping rocks from both his home and the Vitals’ rental property. The Englunds also claim that prior to the *626incident, K.V. had lifted up a large piece of concrete “in a menacing manner” near a location where G.E. and M.V. were playing. The Englunds indicated that Smith had purchased a skid loader for the purpose of removing the rocks. Smith’s wife, Katherine Smith, indicated that she and her husband had “talked about” moving the rocks, but that they “just [hajdn’t gotten] to it yet.” Smith, however, indicated that the skid loader was purchased to assist with snow removal.
[¶ 7.] The Englunds brought suit, individually, and as guardians ad litem for G.E., against K.V., the Vitals, and Smith. The claims against Smith included: negligence, negligent rental, and punitive damages. The claim of negligent rental, however, was conceded by the Englunds. Smith moved for summary judgment. The motion was granted. The trial court held that Smith owed no duty to G.E. The order granting summary judgment in favor of Smith was certified as final under SDCL 15 — 6—54(b). The Englunds now appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Smith. Accordingly, this appeal is limited to the Englunds’ claims against landlord Smith.
[¶8.] We address the following issues on appeal:3
1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based, in part, on its determination that Smith did not owe G.E. a duty of care based on his position as landlord.
2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based, in part, on its determination that Smith owed no duty to protect G.E. from the alleged intentional or criminal conduct of K.V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 9.] Upon review of a grant of summary judgment, “[w]e must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.” Brandt v. Cnty. of Pennington, 2013 S.D. 22, ¶ 7, 827 N.W.2d 871, 874 (quoting Jacobson v. Leisinger, 2008 S.D. 19, ¶ 24, 746 N.W.2d 739, 745). “[A] material fact is one that might affect the outcome of the case[.]” Smith ex rel. Ross v. Lagow Constr. & Developing Co. (Lagow), 2002 S.D. 37, ¶ 9, 642 N.W.2d 187, 190. We view the evidence “most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.” Brandt, 2013 S.D. 22, ¶ 7, 827 N.W.2d at 874 (quoting Jacobson, 2008 S.D. 19, ¶ 24, 746 N.W.2d at 745). Ultimately, “[o]ur task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.” Id.
DECISION
[¶ 10.] 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based, in part, on its determination that Smith did not owe G.E. a duty of care based on his position as landlord.
[¶ 11.] The Englunds argue that Smith, as the Vitals’ landlord, owed a duty of care to G.E. “The landlord’s liabili*627ty has been said to be one sounding in tort and based upon negligence[.]” Boe v. Healy, 84 S.D. 155, 159, 168 N.W.2d 710, 712 (1969) (citation omitted). “Negligence is the breach of a duty owed to another, the proximate cause of which results in an injury.” Janis v. Nash Finch Co., 2010 S.D. 27, ¶ 8, 780 N.W.2d 497, 500 (quoting Stone v. Von Eye Farms, 2007 S.D. 115, ¶ 6, 741 N.W.2d 767, 770). “The general rule regarding a landlord’s liability is: a landlord, having parted with full possession of the premises to the tenant is not liable for injury to third persons caused by the tenant’s negligence.” Clauson v. Kempffer, 477 N.W.2d 257, 259 (S.D.1991) (citations omitted); see also Hendrix v. Schulte, 2007 S.D. 73, ¶ 9, 736 N.W.2d 845, 848.
[¶ 12.] The Englunds argue that Smith owed G.E. a duty of care because he retained control over the Vitals’ rental property. “The law of premises liability is based on possession and control.” Clauson, 477 N.W.2d at 259 (citing W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 57, at 386). Generally, “a lessor of land is not subject to liability to his lessee or others upon the land with the consent of the lessee ... for physical harm caused by any dangerous condition which comes into existence after the lessee has taken possession.” Id. (noting §§ 357 and 360-62 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) as exceptions).
[¶ 13.] The Englunds assert that Smith saw K.V. throwing rocks and allegedly told K.V. to stop, thus, demonstrating control over the Vitals’ rental property. Yet, KV.’s deposition testimony suggests that Smith was asserting control over his personal residence rather than the Vitals’ rental property. In his deposition, K.V. testified:
Q. Had anybody ever talked to you about throwing rocks before this incident with [G.E.], saying that you shouldn’t be throwing rocks?
A. Robert Smith had stated that he didn’t want me to throw rocks toward his house.
Q. Robert Smith told you that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was before this incident with [G.E.]?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when that happened?
A. That was the same time I was throwing them at the tree sir.
Q. A couple weeks before?
A. Yeah.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. Well, I was throwing them at the tree, which is throwing them toward his house. So he didn’t want me to hit his house on accident, sir, so he told me not to throw them toward his house.
Accordingly, even if Smith saw K.V. throwing rocks and asked him to stop, the evidence reflects that Smith was asserting control over his own residence, rather than the rental home then occupied by the Vitals.
[¶ 14.] The Englunds further argue that Smith demonstrated control over the Vitals’ rental property by allegedly agreeing to remove the landscaping rocks from the Vitals’ rental property and by purchasing a skid loader to remove the rocks. In viewing the facts most favorably to the Englunds, we assume that Smith agreed to remove the rocks and purchased the skid loader in order to remove the rocks. Even if Smith agreed to remove the rocks in the future, he had not yet asserted control over the Vitals’ rental *628property. The evidence suggests that the Vitals remained in control of the property they rented from Smith. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment, based in part, on the fact that Smith had parted with possession of the Vitals’ rental property.
[¶ 15.] The Englunds further argue that Smith should be liable, as a landlord, because his backyard constituted a common area. This Court has recognized several exceptions to the general rule that a landlord is not liable for injury to third persons so long as the landlord has “parted with full possession of the premises[.]” Id. One such exception is “where the lessor retains in his control a common area of the premises which the lessee is entitled to use as appurtenant to the leased portion[.]” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 360 (1965)) (additional citations omitted). If the lessor maintains such a common area he is:
subject to liability to his lessee and others lawfully upon the land with the consent of the lessee ... for physical harm caused by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor’s control, if the lessor by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered the condition and the unreasonable risk involved therein and could have made the condition safe.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 360 (1965).
[¶ 16.] The Englunds’ position that Smith retained a common area under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 360 requires that G.E. was entitled to be on Smith’s property. The legal definition of “entitled” is “[t]o grant a legal right to or qualify for.” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed.2009). Under this definition, G.E. was not entitled to use Smith’s yard. On the contrary, the Englunds indicate that Smith allowed all of the neighborhood children to use his backyard swing set.4 Further, there is no evidence that the Vitals’ rental agreement created an entitlement whereby the Vitals were allowed to use Smith’s backyard as appurtenant to their rental home. Because neither the Vital children nor G.E. had a legal right to use Smith’s backyard, it was not a common area as contemplated under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 360. Further, even if Smith’s backyard did constitute a common area, the “dangerous condition” or rock did not come from the common area. The parties agree that the rock thrown by K.V. came from the landscaping alongside the Vitals’ rental home. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that Smith did not maintain his backyard as a common area and that the common area exception to the general rule of landlord liability did not apply.
[¶ 17.] The Englunds argue that Smith, as a landlord, undertook a duty to repair when he allegedly agreed to remove the rocks. Another exception to the general rule of landlord liability, as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 362, is when a landlord purports to repair the land or actually “makes repairs on the land while it is in the lessee’s possession and the lessor completes the repairs negligently[.]” Clauson, 477 N.W.2d at 259 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 362 (1965)). In order for Restatement *629(Second) of Torts § 362 to apply, the landlord’s agreement to make repairs must have “made the land more dangerous for use or given it a deceptive appearance of safety[.]” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 362 (1965).5 Further:
The lessor is subject to liability if, but only if, the lessee neither knows nor should know that the purported repairs have not been made or have been negligently made and so, relying upon the deceptive appearance of safety, subjects himself to the dangers or invites or permits his licensees to encounter them.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 362 cmt. d (1965).
[¶ 18.] Smith argues that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 362 is inapplicable under the facts of this case. We agree. First, even if Smith agreed to remove the rocks, his failure to do so did not make the land more dangerous for use. The condition of the land remained the same. Second, again assuming that Smith agreed to remove the rocks, his failure to do so did not give the land a deceptive appearance of safety. Further, there was no evidence that the Vitals or their neighbors, the En-glunds, were under the impression that the rocks had been removed. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that Smith, as a landlord, did not owe a duty to G.E. because he allegedly agreed to remove the rocks.
[¶ 19.] 2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based, in part, on its determination that Smith owed no duty to protect G.E. from the alleged intentional or criminal conduct of K.V.
[¶ 20.] The Englunds argue that Smith had a duty to protect G.E. from intentional or criminal conduct at his residence and rental property. “On the whole, we recognize no general duty to protect one’s fellow human beings from crime, and that rule equally applies to the ordinary relationship of landlord and tenant.” Lagow, 2002 S.D. 37, ¶ 12, 642 N.W.2d at 190-91. “If a duty exists for such protection, it must originate from some special relationship imposing an obligation to protect another from crime based on a position of dependence intrinsic to the relationship.” Id. ¶ 12, 642 N.W.2d at 191.
[¶ 21.] However, “[s]ection 302B of Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) creates an exception to the general rule that one has no duty to protect another from crime.” Id. ¶ 16, 642 N.W.2d at 191.6 “It provides that such a duty may arise if a person’s affirmative acts or omissions create a foreseeable high risk of harm from criminal assault.” Id. ¶ 16, 642 N.W.2d at 191-92. “Thus, landlords who by their own affirmative acts or omissions create a high risk of harm from crime owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from that increased risk.” Id. *630¶ 16, 642 N.W.2d at 192. “Landlord responsibility also depends on the foreseeability of a criminal act.” Id. Foreseeability is determined “by examining all the circumstances, including the landlord’s knowledge of prior criminal incidents on the premises.” Id. ¶ 19, 642 N.W.2d at 192. “The prior incidents must be sufficiently numerous or of such significance and similarity that the landlord was on notice that there was probable danger to the tenants.” Id.
[¶ 22.] Relying on the Lagow case, the Englunds argue that Smith owed a duty to G.E. In Lagow, a tenant was murdered in her apartment after her killers had entered with a key. Id. ¶ 15, 642 N.W.2d at 191. The tenant had previously told her landlord that she had misplaced her apartment key. Id. There was a question of fact as to whether tenant had asked her landlords to change the locks or whether she believed that the key would “turn up.” Id. Under tenant’s lease agreement, the apartment locks could only be changed by her landlords. Id.
[¶ 23.] A full reading of Lagow makes clear that the landlord’s heightened responsibility in that case came from the language of the lease agreement, whereby the landlords exclusively controlled the tenant’s lock, and her safety from the outside world. Here, even assuming that Smith agreed to remove the rocks, he did not have exclusive control over G.E.’s safety, as in Lagow. There were other ways that G.E. could have been protected from the alleged intentional or criminal acts of K.V. The Englunds suggest that K.V.’s rock throwing was a well-known problem. Accordingly, the Englunds could have limited G.E.’s ability to play in her neighbors’ backyard without adult supervision.
[¶ 24.] There is also a dispute as to whether Smith knew that K.V. was throwing rocks. Viewing the facts in the light most favorably to G.E., we assume that Smith had knowledge of K.V.’s propensity for rock throwing. Even if Smith were aware that K.V. was throwing rocks, the evidence does not suggest that K.V. has previously thrown rocks at people. Accordingly, the alleged intentional or criminal acts of K.V. were not sufficiently foreseeable. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment based on its finding that the Englunds failed to prove that Smith had a duty to protect G.E. from K.V.’s alleged intentional or criminal behavior.
CONCLUSION
[¶ 25.] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to G.E., the record reflects that Smith parted with full possession of the leased premises and did not maintain a common area. Further, Smith’s alleged agreement to remove the rocks did not make the “landscaping condition” more dangerous. Further, K.V.’s alleged criminal act was not sufficiently foreseeable to Smith. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that Smith did not owe a duty of care to G.E. and in granting summary judgment in favor of Smith.
[¶ 26.] Affirmed.
[¶ 27.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SEVERSON, Justice, concur.
[¶ 28.] KONENKAMP, Justice, concurs in result.
[¶ 29.] ZINTER, Justice, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate.