Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968) p172.

duty: landowners and occupiers

While in D's house, P a social guest, severed some tendons and nerves when the porcelain handle on a bathroom faucet cracked in his hand. D had told P about it some weeks earlier, but did not mention it to P this time.

Trial court entered summary judgement for defendant.

Is D liable for failing to warn P about the possible risk of cutting himself on the faucet handle?

Where the occupier of land is unaware of a concealed condition the trier of fact can reasonably conclude that a failure to warn or to repair the condition constitutes negligence.

D had a duty to warn P and is therefore liable for damages incurred.

A guest should be reasonably entitled to rely upon a warning of the dangerous condition.

traditionally a number of considerations have been balanced:

1. Forseeability of harm
2. degree of certainty P suffered the injury
3. closeness of connection between D's conduct and injury suffered
4. moral blame attached to D's conduct
5. policy of preventing future harm
6. consequence to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care
7. availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance

Dissent: bad idea to decided cases on a case by case basis. This decision opens the door to potentially unlimited liability.