an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. The question then, is whether Angel . Pa. 1975) (defendant had no duty to build device on his land to protect local children from abutting railroad tracks); Villani v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 48 Del. 450, 106 A.2d 211 (1954) (finding no common-law duty requiring a landowner to enclose his land with fences); Scott v. Future Invests, of Miami, Inc., 559 So. 2d 726 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (no duty by apartment owner/landlord to fence adjacent canal to protect children/tenant invitees); Geiger v. Fisher, 104 Ill. App. 2d 6, 244 N.E. 2d 848 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Although a minority of jurisdictions holds
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 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 recognizing trend in the law to protect consumers including lessees holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student holding a property owner had no duty to erect a fence to protect a lessees child from an adjacent river