general duty to those using its real estate to ensure “that the condition of the property is safe for the activities for which it is regularly used, intended to be used or reasonably foreseen to be used.” Id. at 435, 562 A.2d at 312. In certain instances, where it is necessary to ensure that the condition of the highway is safe for travel, the activity for which the highway is regularly used, intended to be used and reasonably foreseen to be used, the common law imposes an additional duty on a government party, in this case DOT, to reduce the risks posed by steep cliffs and embankments in close proximity to the highway by erecting guiderails or other barriers. Balla v. Sladek, 381 Pa. 85, 112 A.2d 156 (1955). See also Winegardner v. Springfield Township, 258 Pa. 496, 102 A. 134 (1917) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, if Administrators could
holding that if the party seeking indemnity is held liable in part because of its own negligence common law indemnification is unavailable and the only remedy is contribution holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding that there can be no common liability upon which to base a contribution claim between a third party and an injured partys employer because the exclusive remedy provision means that the employers liability is not based on negligence so that application of the common liability rule deprives a third party of the opportunity to secure contribution from the injured partys employer holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by  recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic holding that if a public road  is so dangerous by reason of its proximity to a precipice that common prudence requires extra precaution in order to secure safety to travelers the government party is bound to use such precaution and the omission to do so is negligence