age, could see, hear, walk, and talk; and he argues that she could have felt safe in warning him from the house because Marquette had never harmed her. While there is significant evidence rebutting the inference that Ms. Patterson’s prior relationship with Marquette would allow her to feel safe in warning Finley on the day of the shooting (e.g., Marquette’s threat to take Ms. Patterson’s money, his refusal to leave her home, his shooting at a fa a duty on a person to warn a police officer, like Finley, of the very dangers inherent in police work and which the officer voluntarily assumed as part of his duties. See Sprouse v. Belcher Oil Co., 577 So.2d 443, 444 (Ala.1991) (stating that assumption of the risk requires knowledge of the danger, appreciation of the dang 8 N.E.2d 538 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Koop v. Bailey, 502 N.E.2d 116 (Ind.App.1986)
holding evidence insufficient to support conviction for possession when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police holding the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner when the evidence showed no one had been injured by the condition in question and the premises owner had received no complaints about the condition in question during a tenyear period holding evidence insufficient to support conviction when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty holding premises owner had no duty to protect when the risk the police officer was subjected to was one inherent in that occupation