Holmes, J. The key issue in this case is whether Ruhlin, as the contractor for the bridge repair work, had a duty to maintain its job site in such a *173 way as to protect against the vandalism that caused damage to Federal’s property located beneath the bridge. For the reasons which follow, we hold that reasonable minds could have determined that Ruhlin had a duty toward…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.