Opinion ID: 849195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: An Alternative Approach

Text: I believe that the appropriate questions that should be taken up in this case are those posed by the Restatement. I would conclude that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the pothole in the defendant's parking lot presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Because § 343 of the Restatement provides that a possessor can be liable only when a condition involves an unreasonable risk of harm, the plaintiff cannot prevail. Likewise, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant should have anticipated that she would be injured by the pothole. Rather, as the majority asserts, the pothole was the type of open and obvious condition that a reasonably prudent person would avoid. Therefore, under § 343A, the defendant is not liable for the physical harm caused by the condition. The plaintiff has failed to establish a material issue of fact. The circumstances of this case reveal that the liability cannotbe imposed against the defendant. Therefore, I join the majority's decision to reverse.