Simon v. Omaha Public Power District

I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that •the owner of the premises should be held liable in this •instance. The hole was protected by a 4-inch elevated flange, and was plainly visible. GHDR’s foreman was supervising the work and was aware of the conditions of the place of employment. In my judgment the contractor is negligent as a matter of law. On this record I would also find assumption of the risk on the part of Simon.

In Laaker v. Hartman (1971), 186 Neb. 774, 186 N. W. 2d 494, we said: “While the owner of premises owes the duty to an invitee to exercise ordinary care to have…