may consist of motorcycles rather than ski trails, but the principles are no less applicable.” Post, ¶ 25. This assertion ignores the fact that our decision in Dalury depended in large part on “[t]he major public policy implications . . . underlying the law of premises liability.” 164 Vt. at 334, 670 A.2d at 799. Dalury emphasized the duty of care a business owner has “to make sure that its premises are in safe and suitable condition for its customers.” Id. (quotation omitted). The dissent’s attempt to equate motorcycles to ski hills fails because the strong public policy of premises liability in Dalury has no parallel in the area of motorcycle test riding. Another critical distinction is that there is no claim here that the product offered by defendant 492, 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) (<HOLDING>). In addition, unlike the ski area in Dalury
recognizing the public interest exception holding that mountaineering does not implicate the public interest holding that a school principals suspension with pay did not implicate a constitutionally protected property interest recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process