Court Opinion

ID: 9718915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:37:39.135396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.458576
License: Public Domain

BAKER, J.,
concurring in result
I concur with the majority in affirming the denial of the Miles’ motion for summary judgment. However, I would remand for a different reason. I do not believe that we may find a duty before we determine whether the land in question is urban or rural. I would remand rather to resolve whether there is a question of fact not addressed by the majority, and that is whether the land involved, adjacent to a public highway and one mile outside Peru’s city limits, is urban or rural. The mere fact that land is outside of city limits does not suffice to make it rural. If the Miles’ land is classified as urban, a different duty of care is imposed under § 363 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts,3 and we need look no further than that classification.

. See Op. at 646, n. 2.