IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT BARROW

DAVID T. HANSON, Plaintiff,

vs.

ARCO ALASKA, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 2BA-97-013 CI

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

The plaintiff has moved, and the defendant has opposed and counter-moved for partial summary
to him by the defendant. Hanson argues that a duty is owed him under three theories of liability.
d a hydraulic pump, which caused a pressure relief mechanism to actuate, giving rise to an injury
he pump was defective under the facts of the case. The second theory is that Arco retained
e a duty to plaintiff. The third theory which is claimed to create a duty is based on the fact that
s injured. While the parties characterize the motions as ones for partial summary judgment, they
ablish the law of the case; to establish as a matter of law what duties are owed by the defendant
liability. Nevertheless, the motion will be decided under the provisions of Alaska R. Civ. P. 56.

The plaintiff bases the argument of premises liability on Restatement (Second) of Torts 343. The
a landowner in Webb v. City & Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731, 733 (Alaska 1977) when they said:
a reasonable person in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the
 others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden on the respective parties of avoiding the
t, because it has been conceded that Arco owns the building in which the plaintiff was injured, and
injured by any inherent condition of the premises, nevertheless, the above quote establishes a duty
 of liability claimed by the plaintiff is premises liability, he is entitled to have the jury