Cited by

This includes “an ongoing duty to inspect and maintain” the property to ensure that visitors are “not exposed to unreasonable risks of harm.”

“If a statute is ambiguous, the construction that avoids constitutional problems should be used, even if such a construction is less natural.”

This duty of care “includes an ongoing duty to inspect and maintain property to ensure entrants on the landowner’s land are not exposed to unreasonable risks of harm.”

that a landowner has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all entrants upon the premises.”

Although appellants are correct that the supreme court distinguished between a land possessor’s personal duty and a nondelegable duty in its analysis in Conover, that 10 duty “to use reasonable care for the safety of entrants on their land, including the duty to inspect their premises for dangerous conditions and to repair them or warn entrants about them.”

(“[T]he county need not necessarily adopt a written policy, but there must be evidence that there was a deliberative process that led to establishment of the policy in question.”), aff’d on other grounds

by the dangerous condition.”

“If dangerous conditions are discoverable through reasonable efforts, the landowner must either repair the conditions or provide invited entrants with adequate warnings.” Olmanson v. LeSueur County , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 cmt.

Olmanson v. LeSueur County , see Bisher v. Homart Dev.

“Generally, whether a condition presents a known or obvious danger is a question of fact.” Olmanson v. LeSueur Cnty .

See Aquila, d at 884 (natural-gas pipeline system); Olmanson v. LeSueur County , (golf-cart culvert); (crane with structures surrounding it); Bulau v. Hector Plumbing & Heating Co., -30 (Minn. 1987) (fireplace), superseded by statute , Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd.

” Olmanson v. LeSueur C ounty

2 Olmanson v. LeSueur County

(stating that, generally, “whether a condition presents a known or obvious danger is a question of fact”); (stating that distracting circumstances are factors a jury may consider in assessing the obviousness of a danger).

App. 2008) (citing Olmanson v. LeSueur County , (statutory interpretation); Johnson v. Murray , (subject-matter jurisdiction); Anderson v. Archer , (stipulations in dissolution judgments)), review denied (Aug.

(discussing statutory construction to avoid constitutional problems); (discussing 5 interplay of common law and statutory law), aff’d

(discussing premises liability).

Actual or Constructive Knowledge of a Danger “[A] landowner has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all entrants upon the premises.”

of Torts § 343A, subsection (1), which states: “A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts § 343A(1) (1965)).

As a general rule, a property owner “has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all entrants upon the premises.” d 876, 880 (Minn. 2005).

On appeal from summary judgment, we determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”

When considering an “appeal from summary judgment, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”

“On appeal from summary judgment, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”

The result of this approach, as in any premises liability negligence case, is that the “landowner’s duty of reasonable care is modified according to the expected use of the land.” -81 (Minn.2005).

667 n. 4 (Minn.2007) (noting that broader issue of whether defendant has duty is generally question of law).

(statutory interpretation); (subject-matter jurisdiction); (stipulations in dissolution judgments).

-81 (Minn.2005) (describing duty of reasonable care to all entrants).

(reviewing question of law de novo).

See, -80 (Minn.2005) (“If a statute is ambiguous, the construction that avoids constitutional problems should be used, even if such a construction is less natural.”).

On appeal from summary judgment, this court determines “whether *894 there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”

I. On appeal from summary judgment, this court determines “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.”