Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (1996)

Citation
Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (1996)
Parent Document
Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Montana (state)
Effective Date
1996-02-26

Other Sections in This Document (335)

Full Text

1,817 chars
[Al 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           and obviousness.           The . .       possessor      may
            have reason          to expect      harm to a visitor            from known or
            obvious        dangers,      for    example       when the possessor             has
            reason       to expect       that     the invitee's         attention      may be
            distracted,         so he will       not discover       what is obvious,           or
            forget     what he has discovered,              or fail   to protect      himself
            against       it.      Since   there     is no such evidence           here,     the
            trial     court     was correct        in awarding      summary judgment           in
            favor     of the Romos.
                             The very most       Forbes    has shown is that             she
            slipped     on a piece    of gravel.        Neither     its    size nor the
            length     of time     it  was on the sidewalk               has ever      been
            shown.       The record    discloses      only     this     lone,   solitary
            piece   of gravel     on the sidewalk.         We do not believe           that
            reasonable      minds would differ.         Forbes has not shown that
             [the lessee      of the store1     was negligent. Forbes,            601 P.2d             at        313-14