Opinion ID: 1698910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: urban v. rural lands

Text: Courts have also drawn a distinction in application of the agrarian rule based on location of the property in an urban or rural setting. These courts have reasoned that adhering to a no liability rule may be appropriate in rural areas, although there is no valid basis for its continued use in urban and other developed areas where artificial landscaping or other conditions may be more likely to impact traffic safety. See Mahurin, 71 Ill.App.3d at 692-93, 28 Ill.Dec. 356, 390 N.E.2d 523; Hasapopoulos, 689 S.W.2d at 120; Barker v. Brown, 236 Pa.Super. 75, 340 A.2d 566, 569 (1975). These decisions are reflected in the views of the Restatement where section 363(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts recognizes the traditional rule of no liability, [9] while section 363(2) imposes a duty on possessors of land in urban areas. Specifically, section 363(2) provides: A possessor of land in an urban area is subject to liability to persons using a public highway for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway. [10] Several courts have expressly adopted section 363(2). See, e.g., Valinet v. Eskew, 574 N.E.2d 283, 285 (Ind.1991) (We agree that the differing duties placed on owners of land with respect to differing demographics [referring to the urban/rural distinction] is correct. We therefore adopt § 363 of the RESTATEMENT.); see also Zapata v. Kariyaparambil, 1997 WL 566222, at .