The duty of reasonable care is defined by a three-part test prescribed by the Restatement Second, Torts § 343 (1965). It states that ordinarily, an owner of land is not liable to an invitee for injuries caused by a condition on the land unless the owner: 1.Knows or should know that the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm; 2.Could not reasonably expect its invitees to realize the risk themselves; AND 3.Failed to make the condition reasonably safe or warn the invitee.

The operator of a business owes a duty of reasonable care for the safety of members of the public who are invited as customers to his business premises.

Is A Business Operator Liable when..? Actual KnowledgeYES Constructive Knowledge YES Employee Caused Condition YES No KnowledgeNO

Whether a business operator had constructive knowledge of an temporary unsafe condition is dependent on whether the condition existed long enough so that it would have been discovered by an owner exercising reasonable care.

There is an exception to the notice requirement where the nature of the operator’s business and methods of operation are such that the existence of unsafe conditions on the premises is either continuous or reasonably foreseeable. The exception does not apply to the entire area of the store in which the customers serve themselves; there must be a relationship between the hazardous condition and the self-service mode of operation of the business.

Duty of Municipalities Ordinary care in construction, design, maintenance and repair of public roads, streets and sidewalks Keep Sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition, even if a hazard is “open and obvious” Whether a sidewalk or roadway is reasonably safe is generally a question of fact. Duty is limited to those persons using them in a proper manner and exercising ordinary care for their own safety Plaintiff must establish that the municipality had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition of a sidewalk or roadway and a reasonable opportunity to correct it or to give proper warning of its existence. The notice requirement does not apply to conditions that are created by employees of the municipality, or to conditions that result from their conduct.

Duty of Property Owners The only duty of a property owner is to use and keep his premises in a condition so that adjacent public ways are not rendered unsafe for ordinary travel. One who makes “special use” of a public thoroughfare, such as a sidewalk, for his own purposes has a duty to use reasonable care in maintaining it. Gratuitous improvement of a public thoroughfare, such as replacing a dislodged brick or trimming trees, does not constitute a “special use.” An owner of land who gratuitously maintains public land adjacent to his own land does not incur an obligation to continue such maintenance. An owner of land adjacent to a public sidewalk can have a duty of reasonable care to protect pedestrians using the sidewalk if an artificial condition on the owner’s land creates a hazard to sidewalk users. There is no duty to warn of obvious dangers.

A landowner has an affirmative duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition. The duty to use reasonable care applies not only to artificial conditions, but also to natural conditions that present an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees.

Expertise of a fireman would include superior knowledge of risks involved in fighting a fire. Expertise of a roofer would include superior knowledge of risks of dry rot. Expertise of a fireworks technician would include knowledge of risks of operating elevators.

Sufficiently similar in nature and location to the criminal act that injured the plaintiff. Sufficiently close in time to the act in question. Sufficiently numerous to have put the business on notice that such an act was likely to occur. **McKown v. Simon Property Group, 182 Wn.2d 752; 344 P.3d 661 (March 2015) (Shopping mall was not responsible for assailants shooting of a store employee).

To Qualify for Immunity Landowner Must Show: Land was open to public Land open for recreational purposes No fee was charged

In order to constitute a known dangerous condition under the statute, the landowner must have actual as opposed to constructive knowledge that a condition is dangerous. A “dangerous condition” is defined as one that poses an unreasonable risk of harm.

A tree stump submerged by reservoir constituted artificial condition when struck by a boater. Whether a condition is latent is determined not by the injured victim’s discovery or failure to discover the condition, but by whether the condition is generally evident.