about structures that may obstruct the proper general take-off or landing flight way since it has a duty to provide safe premises for airplane use). ¶ 11 A landowner’s obligation to invitees, however, is not limitless. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A cmt. e (1965) (noting that the duty ceases when the person ceases to be an invitee). Once an invitee safely leaves the premises, the landowner-invitee relationship terminates, as does the landowner’s duty to the invitee. See Riddle v. Ariz. Oncology Servs., Inc., 186 Ariz. 464, 468-69, 924 P.2d 468, 472-73 (App.1996) (affirming dismissal of claim against employer arising from auto accident that occurred after employer sent impaired employee home early); Wickham v. Hopkins, 226 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 17, 250 P.3d 245, 249 (App.2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Price v. Canadian Airlines, 429
holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that the landownerlicensee relationship ceased when the licensee left the landowners property holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking holding that ordinance which generally promotes public welfare is unreasonable and unconstitutional as applied to landowners property holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property