Park had a duty to protect its tenants from a dangerous condition immediately adjacent to its land under the facts of this case. As a landlord, Angeles Park had a duty "to maintain the common areas of the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the tenants’ use.” Degel, 129 Wn.2d at 49. (citing Geise v. Lee, 84 Wn.2d 866, 529 P.2d 1054 (1975)). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, however, imposes liability upon a landowner for harm caused "by a condition on the land.” Angeles Park did not own or operate the irrigation canal. No case in Washington directly addresses this issue. The majority of jurisdictions do not impose a duty upon landowners to protect people on their land from dangers on adjacent land. See Corcoran v. City of San Mateo, 122 Cal. App. 2d 355, 265 P.2d 102 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Accord Cousins v. Yaeger, 394 F. Supp. 595
holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control holding a property owner had no duty to erect a fence to protect a lessees child from an adjacent river holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that landowners have no duty to erect a fence or barrier to prevent people from injuring themselves upon other peoples property due to conditions natural or artificial which may exist and over which one has no control holding that a defendant easement holder did not owe duty to protect an invitee from a fence which the defendant had no right to control