Schoenherr v. Stuart Frankel Development Co.

I concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to note that Szy-manski v Kmart Corp1 was vacated, albeit on grounds other than the principle for which it was cited (that is, that liability should not be imposed under the inherently dangerous activity doctrine if the activity was not unusual, the risk not unique, and reasonable safeguards against injury could have been provided through well-recognized safety measures). Although this Court adhered to its previous ruling in Szymanski on remand, it did not restate that principle in the remanded case.

In light of Dunn v DAIEE,2 it is not…