§ 314A(4) specifically explain that a duty exists under these unique circumstances: “The duty to protect the other against unreasonable risk of harm extends to risks arising out of the [other s] own conduct . . . [or] from the negligence of the [other] himself.” Restatement (Second) Torts § 314A, comment d. No Kansas case has acknowledged the duty of a custodian to protect one in custody from physical harm as set forth in subsection (4) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A. With that said, numerous Kansas cases have acknowledged, pursuant to subsection (3) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, the duty of one in possession of land to aid or protect members of the public invited onto the land. See D.W. v. Bliss, 279 Kan. 726, 732, 112 P.3 Kan. 2000) (unpublished opinion) (<HOLDING>). We note that in Griffin, Judge Vratil relied
holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding united states marshal service had legal duty of care with respect to suicidal prisoner who escaped from custody and then committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor atrium of united states courthouse holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states