Opinion ID: 2519635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Common Law Duty of Landowner to Invitee

Text: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held a reasonable trier of fact could find Space Needle was negligent in operating the elevators. We disagree. The legal standard applicable to this issue is well settled. The legal duty owed by a landowner to a person entering the premises depends on whether the entrant [is] a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84, 90-91, 915 P.2d 1089 (1996). Employees of independent contractors hired by landowners are invitees on the landowners' premises. Meyers v. Synd. Heat & Power Co., 47 Wash. 48, 91 P. 549 (1907); Epperly v. City of Seattle, 65 Wash.2d 777, 786, 399 P.2d 591 (1965). We have adopted sections 343 and 343A of the Restatement Second of Torts to define a landowner's duty to invitees. Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 93, 915 P.2d 1089: A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. Restatement Second of Torts § 343. Space Needle argues because the danger was known and obvious, it is not liable for Kamla's injury. But this argument ignores section 343A, which we also cited in Iwai: A possessor of land is not liable to his [or her] invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.  Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 94, 915 P.2d 1089 (alteration in original) (quoting (emphasis added) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A). A landowner is liable for harm caused by an open and obvious danger if the landowner should have anticipated the harm, despite the open and obvious nature of the danger. Properly framed, the question in this case is whether Space Needle should have anticipated Kamla's harm, despite the obvious hazard posed by the moving elevators. The trial court dismissed this claim on summary judgment, stating, the defendant is not liable for plaintiff's failure to avoid an open, obvious potential hazard about which he was aware and warned. Clerk's Papers at 607. We review summary judgment orders de novo and will affirm if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson Court Ltd. P'ship v. Tony Maroni's, Inc., 134 Wash.2d 692, 698, 952 P.2d 590 (1998). We view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wash.2d 17, 21, 896 P.2d 665 (1995). Under the facts in the record, Space Needle was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pyro was a business entity that represented itself as possessing expertise in the creation and execution of fireworks displays. Collectively, the project team for Pyro had over 100 years of experience in designing, installing, and executing fireworks displays. Pyro created similar displays at the Space Needle the two previous years and suggested to Space Needle that it incorporate the 200-foot level into the 1997 New Year's Eve display. Kamla worked for Pyro in the core of the Space Needle the two previous years. Pyro employees who worked in the core were exposed to and aware of the danger posed by the moving elevators. Finally, Pyro employees had independently devised a safety system designed to avoid the elevator openings. Given Pyro's expertise, Kamla's two years of personal experience working on the 200-foot level next to the obvious danger posed by the elevators, and Kamla's own acute awareness of the danger posed by the moving elevators, we believe no reasonable trier of fact could find Space Needle should have anticipated that Kamla would drag his safety line across the open elevator shaft. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals on this point and affirm the trial court's ruling.