Court Opinion

ID: 9516093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:34:23.881652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:26.699752
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that •the owner of the premises should be held liable in this •instance. The hole was protected by a 4-inch elevated flange, and was plainly visible. GHDR’s foreman was supervising the work and was aware of the conditions of the place of employment. In my judgment the contractor is negligent as a matter of law. On this record I would also find assumption of the risk on the part of Simon.
In Laaker v. Hartman (1971), 186 Neb. 774, 186 N. W. 2d 494, we said: “While the owner of premises owes the duty to an invitee to exercise ordinary care to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use in á manner consonant with the purposes of the invitation, generally, there is no duty on the part of an inviter owner to protect an invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or áre so apparent that he may reasonably be expected! to discover them and protect •himself.”
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.