In Church v. Callanan Indus., Inc. (99 NY2d 104 [2002]), a contractor failed to install the full length of guard rail it had been hired to place along a highway and plaintiff's decedent died in a car crash along the stretch of road where the shortfall was located. Even so, the Court of Appeals held that the contractor had not launched an instrument of harm, it had only failed to make the road safer (id. at 112). The court granted a subcontractor's motion for summary judgment, after concluding that it was not liable to the plaintiff for any breaches of its contract with the State, the entity who hired the contractor. In that action, the subcontractor was hired to install guide rails along a portion of the state thruway by a contractor who was initially hired by the State (id. at 109, 114). In that case, plaintiff was an occupant of a vehicle whose driver fell asleep at the wheel, causing said vehicle to careen down an embankment accessible through an area which was slotted for guide rail installation, but upon which the subcontractor had yet to begin work (id.). The court held that the subcontractor was not liable to the plaintiff under any of the exceptions cited above (id. at 109-110). In holding for the subcontractor, the Court held that the subcontractor's failure to install guide rails at the location of the accident therein, did not cause or create a dangerous condition, since the subcontractor's failure to install guiderails thereat did not make the are therein any more dangerous than it was without the guide rails (id. at 112). Specifically, the court noted that had the subcontractor created the dangerous condition alleged, liability would have been extant but that in that case, the breach of contract consisted merely in withholding a benefit where inaction is at most a refusal to become an instrument for good. Specifically, San Juan's [the subcontractor] failure to install the additional length of guiderail did nothing more than neglect to make the highway at Thruway milepost marker 132.7 safer--as opposed to less safe--than it was before the repaving and safety improvement project began (id. at 112.) The court further concluded that there was no detrimental reliance by plaintiff upon the subcontractor's and that the contract between the subcontractor and the State was not one whereby the contractor assumed all safety related obligations with regard to the guiderail system so as displace the State's obligation to safely maintain the guiderails (id. at 113). More specifically, the court noted that the contract therein was not comprehensive and exclusive with respect to inspection and supervision vis a vis the installation of the guiderails, and as such, the contractor did not displace or assume the State's duty to safely maintain the guiderails (id.).