DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)

Citation
Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Parent Document
Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2001-06-19
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931615/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text

540 chars 
But, Ms. White relied on Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., 129 Wn.2d 43, 50, 914 P.2d 728 (1996) at the trial court and here to argue that Mr. Stalick had a duty to protect tenants and other invitees because the defect was so obvious he could anticipate this specific harm. The Degel court reasoned that a possessor of land is ordinarily not liable to invitees for known or obvious dangers, but liability will attach if the possessor should have anticipated the harm despite the invitee’s knowledge or the obviousness of the danger. Id.