its rules, and a duty to exercise reasonable care under these circumstances.” Id. Relying in part on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965), the court agreed. The court found that, by prohibiting tenants from keeping vicious dogs and further requiring Scepurek to promise to remove annoying pets, the landlord undertook the obligation to control vicious dogs in its trailer park, i.e., keep the premises free from vicious dogs. Alaskan Village, 720 P.2d at 948. Significantly, the court also noted that “evidence that the undertaking is for the plaintiffs benefit is a prerequisite to liability; a plaintiff who does not produce such evidence is not entitled to a jury instruction on this theory.” Alaskan Village, 720 P.2d at 947; see also Goddard by Goddard, 558 N.E.2d at 854-55 (<HOLDING>). The instant case, however, is distinguishable
recognizing possibility that landlord had administrative claim for postpetition conversion of its property holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control holding that tenant failed to establish that the landlord breached his duty because tenant offered no evidence that landlord failed to properly maintain second floor balcony or that the landlord was aware of tenants use of deck to move furniture into the second floor or that such a practice was common recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question holding landlord was not liable because landlord had relinquished control despite landlords distribution of notices to residents telling them to keep their dogs tied or inside because evidence suggested that the reason for notice was that landlord had received complaints about barking and trash removal and not to protect others