Opinion ID: 849195
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Where does the Restatement come into play?

Text: The second imperative point to understand about Restatement §§ 343 and 343A is that they refer to the imposition of liability; they do not discuss whether a duty exists. In fact, one of the very first cases incorporating the Restatement into our jurisprudence stated, 2 Restatement of the Law of Torts, Negligence, under title of `business visitors,' § 343, sets forth the following standard of care which we believe is applicable here.... Nash v. Lewis, 352 Mich. 488, 492, 90 N.W.2d 480 (1958). In my view, § 343 and § 343A assume that a duty has been imposed by virtue of the possessor and invitee relationship, but that liability nonetheless can be limited under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, the Restatement does not explicitly lay out the standard of care, it simply says that a possessor of land is subject to liability in § 343 cases, or is not liable in § 343A cases. Thus, the Restatement only explicitly provides a liability shield. However, the Restatement's use of phrases such as should expect, unreasonable risk, and reasonable care indicate that a premises possessor must protect his invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land that the landowner knows or should know the invitees will not discover, realize, or protect themselves against. Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich. 606, 609, 537 N.W.2d 185 (1995). Once this premises liability rule is plugged into the language of the Restatement, we would be left with the following rule in known or obvious danger cases: A possessor owes his invitees a duty of reasonable care in order to protect them from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land; he breaches that duty by failing to protect his invitees from harm, though he should have anticipated that harm would result from the known or obvious danger despite the condition's obviousness or the invitee's knowledge of the danger. When the invitor breaches his duty of care in this manner, he can be subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if the conditions of § 343 are met. A second inquiry would then be whether, despite the possibility that liability could normally be imposed against the possessor because he has failed to reasonably protect his invitee, the possessor can nonetheless avoid liability on the basis that the danger was known or obvious to the invitee. When the danger is obvious, or when the invitee knows of it, § 343A of the Restatement would suspend liability unless the possessor should anticipate harm flowing from the condition despite the invitee's knowledge of the condition or the obviousness of the condition.