turnover duty of safe condition. See Thomas v. Newton Int’l Enters., 42 F.3d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir.1994) (reversing summary judgment dismissal of § 905(b) claim when the worker produced evidence that the shipowner turned over the vessel to the stevedore with a hazardous condition and explaining that whether obviousness of the hazard absolved shipowner’s liability was “inappropriate for resolution at the summary judgment stage”); see also Scheuring, 476 F.3d at 791 (reversing summary judgment dismissal of § 905(b) claim when plaintiffs evidence showed a hazardous condition and noting that the “ultimate issue of ‘unreasonable dangerousness’ ” was a question of fact for the jury); Martinez, 903 F.2d at 611 (similar); Subingsubing v. Reardon Smith Line, Ltd., 682 F.2d 779, 782 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). In reaching a contrary conclusion, the
holding that the fourth amendment violation alleged by plaintiff also suffices to establish the breach of a duty of care under california law holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that the record here fails to establish the first two elements which the court identified as the duty of care and a breach of that duty and as a result a directed verdict  on the issue of liability was warranted holding that shipowner owed the plaintiff longshoreman a duty of care to keep the vessel free of dangerous and nonobvious tripping hazards and remanding for determination of breach recognizing duty of care owed by business invitor to invitee