here, whether there is a duty to fence in a waterway that is located within or adjacent to a park. However, once an entity undertakes to provide that protection, it is obligated to use reasonable care in providing it. For as long as Riverside Park has been in existence, there has been a fence separating the park from the Jordan River. Guardian Cynthia Stuckman asserts that she reasonably relied upon the integrity of the fence in allowing her son to play alone in the playground. If the jury should choose to believe Stuckman’s assertion, then it could find that either the City, the State, or both breached a duty owed to children playing in the park. This holding is supported by case law in several states. See, e.g., McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co., 220 Cal.App.3d 1, 269 Cal.Rptr. 196 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Lukasiewicz v. City of Buffalo, 55 A.D.2d
holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend holding that the tenants had a reasonable expectation that their housing would conform to the minimum housing code in effect and when it did not conform the landlord breached an implied warranty of habitability holding that the tribes housing authority was exempt from the adea a general statute because the tribal entity was not just a business but also functioned as an arm of tribal government by providing housing to tribe members holding that federally funded housing project incurred duty when it erected fence on property bordering creek duty was breached when housing project allowed fence to fall into disrepair holding that the rule bars subcontractors negligence claim because no independent duty was breached