While Unzen is the only published Minnesota case cited for the proposition that conditions that do not have inherently dangerous propensities can still constitute a condition likely to cause serious bodily harm or death, several unpublished and foreign decisions support the proposition that inherently dangerous propensities are not always necessary. See Kaloustian v. Dakota Fence Co., A14-0589, 2015 WL 46479, at *5 (Minn. App. Jan. 5, 2015) (stating that the court was "not prepared to hold" that a "chinning bar" that rotated on its own axis did not present a dangerous condition as a matter of law), review dismissed (Minn. Mar. 3, 2015); Bacon v. Indep. Sch. Dist., #192, C7-95-212, 1995 WL 434446 at *3 (Minn. App. July 25, 1995) (holding that a white nylon rope suspended four feet off the ground across a snowmobile trail constituted an inherently dangerous condition when struck at high speed); see also Humphrey v. Glenn, 167 S.W.3d 680, 685-86 (Mo. 2005) (holding that a 3/8" cable wire strung across a private road that struck a driver of a four-wheeler was inherently dangerous).