Allen Keller Co. v. Foreman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the contractor owed no duty to warn the public or rectify the unreasonably dangerous site condition
• holding that the contractor owed no duty to warn the public or rectify the unreasonably dangerous site condition
• recognizing that general negligence principles apply to contractor, which left premises in unsafe condition
• explaining that even assuming Keller’s work created the dangerous condition, Keller did not own the property and therefore did not have a duty to warn
• noting that “general negligence principles apply” to a contractor’s negligent creation of a dangerous premises condition
• recognizing the “distinction between broad, policy-laden questions of duty” to be decided by courts as a matter of law and the “more particularized scope-of-liability inquiries such as proximate cause”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).