Opinion ID: 475301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Landowner.

Text: 17 Lacey argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation. Lacey asserts that Lee Creek Road existed for the sole benefit of Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation. He argues that Bekaert, as possessor of the property under and adjacent to the road, had a duty to erect dead end guardrails and warning devices at the river bank. 18 Lacey relies almost exclusively upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts in support of his argument. The general rule is that a possessor of land over which there is a public highway does not have a duty to travelers on the highway. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 349 (1965); see generally Kopveiler v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 280 Minn. 489, 160 N.W.2d 142, 144 (1968); White v. Munro, 241 Ark. 496, 408 S.W.2d 599, 600 (1966). However, he may be liable for physical harm caused to travelers thereon by a failure to exercise reasonable care in creating or maintaining in reasonably safe condition any structure or other artificial condition created or maintained in the highway by him or for his sole benefit   . Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 350; see generally Jones v. Halekulani Hotel, Inc., 557 F.2d 1308, 1310 (9th Cir.1977); Strange v. Bodcaw Lumber Co., 96 S.W. 152, 153-154 (Ark.1906). 19 The district court held that Bekaert had no duty of care with respect to Lee Creek Road because the road had been accepted for public use. In reviewing the district court's ruling that Bekaert was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to Lacey. See Anselmo v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., 771 F.2d 417, 420 (8th Cir.1985). We agree with the district court that Lacey's claim against Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation is without merit. Lacey failed to show that Bekaert created or maintained any structure or artificial condition on Lee Creek Road. Nor did Lacey show that any such structure or artificial condition existed for Bekaert's sole benefit. Absent any such evidence, we must hold that Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation had no duty to install safety devices on the public road which ran across its property. 20