Plaintiff bases that argument on her view that Oregon premises liability law recognizes five separate and distinct duties, which she states as follows: "1. To maintain reasonably safe premises, Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or 548, 557-[58], 687 P2d 144 (1984); Hill v. Pacific Power & Light, 273 Or 713, 715, 543 P2d 3 (1975);"2.
Here, the case was properly submitted to the jury in language taken from Dawson. We do not read Dawson to say that a court should never withdraw the question from a jury, see Hill v. Pacific Power Light, 273 Or. 713, 543 P.2d 3 (1975), but here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we are unable to say as a matter of law that the presence of a baseball-size rock on a dock near the end of the gangway, while men are using the gangway during a loading operation, is not an unreasonably dangerous condition. Plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to present a jury question.