Court Opinion

ID: 9686548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:55:05.623462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:29.008471
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Stenholtz v. Modica, 264 N.W.2d 514 (S.D.1978), which sets forth the general rule of reasonable care, is in no way dispositive of whether or not a possessor of land may have a duty to inspect. In fact, it appears this precise issue has never heretofore been addressed in this state. Therefore, my legal schooner would sail in a different direction.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965) provides:
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.
See also Syas v. Nebraska Methodist Hosp. Foundation, 209 Neb. 201, 307 N.W.2d 112 (1981); Mundy v. Warren, 268 N.W.2d 213 (Iowa 1978).
This duty of reasonable care is the highest duty owed to any entrant upon the land and imparts an affirmative duty to inspect the premises for unreasonably dangerous conditions. Cul-Co., Inc. v. Redd, 577 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Civ.App.1979); Crotty v. Reading Industries, Inc., 237 Pa.Super. 1, 345 A.2d 259 (1975); Hanson v. Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc., 259 Iowa 542, 144 N.W.2d 870 (1966); Smith v. Henger, 148 Tex. 456, 226 S.W.2d 425 (1950). Inofact, it is this duty of inspection which distinguishes the obligation of a possessor of land owed to an invitee and that owed to a mere licensee. Crotty, 345 A.2d 259; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 comment b (1965).
Further, as in other negligence actions, where the duty is invoked, imputed or constructive knowledge on the part of the defendant may be sufficient to satisfy the requirement, and lack of knowledge may be wholly immaterial. 62 Am.Jur.2d Premises Liability § 68 (1972).
The term “reasonable care” is not susceptible of one definition, however, and must be given meaning in relation to the circumstances. McCormick v. Waters, 594 S.W.2d 385 (Tenn.1980). Crotty, 345 A.2d 259; Smith, 226 S.W.2d 425. For example, the Restatement is clear that the duty does not arise when dangers are known or obvious to the invitee, unless the possessor should anticipate harm despite this obviousness: Restatement (Second) of Torts *447§ 343A(1) (1965). Young v. Jefferson Hotel Corp., 541 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.App.1976).
Clearly, in light of these circumstances, and by the rules just set forth, factual issues remained which should not have been taken from the jury. For example, it is for a jury to decide (1) whether by the exercise of reasonable care appellee should have discovered the danger and realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm; (2) whether appellee should have expected that appellant would not discover or realize the danger; and (3) whether ap-pellee failed to exercise reasonable care or realize the danger. Further, it might be reasonably questioned whether the condition or activity was known or obvious to appellant and if appellee should have anticipated the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.
Stenholtz relies on the Restatement (Second) of Torts for the general standard. I would unfurl Stenholtz one league further and more fully adopt the position that, under certain circumstances and conditions, the duty owed to an invitee may indeed include an obligation to inspect. Under this ruling, I would reverse the trial court’s directed verdict.