FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:

ROBERT K. STANLEY    LINDA GEORGE
KEVIN M. TONER    W. RUSSELL SIPES
KATHY L. OSBORN    Laudig George Rutherford & Sipes
MEG A. GALLMEYER    Indianapolis, Indiana
Baker & Daniels
Indianapolis, Indiana

ERIC M. CAVANAUGH
Plainfield, Indiana

     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

PSI ENERGY, INC.,                     )
                                           )
Appellant-Defendant,                       )
                                           )
vs.                                        )    No. 49A02-0210-CV-883
                                           )
WILLIAM LEE ROBERTS, JR., and              )
BEVERLY ROBERTS,                           )
                                           )
Appellees-Plaintiffs.                      )

                                       

                                       

    January 28, 2004

    OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Judge

The landowner knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the condition, and should have realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm to Mr. Roberts;
The landowner should have expected that Mr. Roberts would not discover or realize the danger, or would fail to protect himself against it;
The landowner failed to exercise reasonable care to protect Mr. Roberts against the danger; and
The Landowners’ breach proximately caused Mr. Roberts’ disease.

Appellant’s Appendix at 199. In conjunction with Final Instruction 18, Final Instruction 19 provides that:
In determining whether a Premises Defendant breached its duty to Mr. Roberts when he was present on the landowner’s premises as an employee of an independent contractor it is appropriate to take into account the comparative knowledge of the Premises Defendant and Mr. Roberts. A Premises Defendant is not liable to Mr. Roberts for physical harm caused to him by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to him, unless the Premises Defendant should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.

Id. at 200.
Final Instruction 20 reads:
     As a general rule, a landowner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. A non-delegable duty may be imposed on the landowner, however, if one of the following two exceptions applies.
First, the law imposes a duty on a landowner if the work to be performed is intrinsically dangerous. Work is “intrinsically dangerous” if the danger exists in the doing of the activity regardless of the method used. The work is intrinsically dangerous if the risk of injury cannot be eliminated or significantly reduced by taking proper precautions.
Second, the law imposes a duty on a landowner if the work to be performed will probably cause injury to others unless due precautions are taken to avoid harm. The essence of this exception is the foreseeability of both the peculiar risk involved in the work and the need for special precautions. For purposes of this exception, the phase “peculiar risk” refers to the risk of a particularized harm specific to the work being performed or the conditions under which it is performed. Moreover, the exception applies only when the risk involved is something more than the routine and predictable hazards generally associated with a given occupation: it must be a risk unique to the circumstances of a given job.
The plaintiffs have the burden of proof to establish that at least one of these two exceptions applies and that Mr. Roberts’ disease was proximately caused by the breach of such duty.

Id. at 201.
    PSI does not question the instructions as incorrect statements of the law, but, as we have noted, claims the evidence is insufficient to support giving any of the instructions or to support the jury’s verdict. Our review brings us to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and the judgment against PSI upon the law as stated in Final Instructions 18 and 19. We therefore affirm without considering the appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence on the theory presented in Final Instruction 20. See footnote See, e.g., Picadilly, Inc. v. Colvin, 519 N.E.2d 1217, 1220-1221 (Ind. 1988) (holding that an appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment on the evidence failed because “a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must demonstrate inadequate evidence under every theory of liability, not merely one of many, before prejudice is established” and “[a] general verdict will be sustained if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any theory of liability”).

Id. at 421-422, 363 N.E.2d at 990-991 (internal citations omitted). As our supreme court recently noted, if there is evidence that would allow reasonable people to differ as to the result, judgment on the evidence is improper. Smith v. Baxter, 796 N.E.2d 242, 243 (Ind. 2003).    
Roberts’s premises liability theory was based upon evidence that, in addition to the work ACandS and Roberts performed with and upon asbestos containing materials, PSI’s employees engaged in conduct that caused asbestos to become airborne in areas that Roberts was working, adding to the asbestos exposure Roberts encountered through his own work. Specifically, Roberts spent most of the 1960’s and 1970’s working in PSI’s generating stations. While Roberts worked in the plants, PSI employees often removed and disposed of asbestos insulation and caused asbestos dust in the areas where Roberts worked. Asbestos insulation materials were commonly found lying around on the floor in the PSI plants. While the insulation was lying on the floor, it was broken up and spread to lower floors through the vast areas of grating, which acted like a “cheese grater,” and resulted in more asbestos exposure to Roberts. Transcript at 2783-2784.
Although, generally, a landowner has “no duty to furnish the employees of an independent contractor a safe place to work in the broad sense as the phrase is applied to an employer,” the landowner is under a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees, including employees of independent contractors. Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258, 1264-1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied; see Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 1991) (“A landowner owes the highest duty to an invitee: a duty to exercise reasonable care for his protection while he is on the landowner’s premises.”), reh’g denied; see also Zawacki v. U.S.X., 750 N.E.2d 410, 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (A “landowner is liable for reasonably foreseeable injuries to a contractor’s employee caused by hazardous instrumentalities maintained by the landowner on the landowner’s premises), trans. denied.
Our supreme court has held that the best definition of this duty comes from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965):
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he

knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and

should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

Id. at 639-640 (emphasis added). Section 343 must be read together with Section 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides that:
A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by an activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.

Douglass v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368, 370 (Ind. 1990). In analyzing whether a landowner breached its duty to an invitee, we consider the purpose and intent of the invitation and the comparative knowledge of the parties. See footnote Merrill, 771 N.E.2d at 1265.
PSI focuses its argument upon Section 343(b) above. PSI does not contest the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the evidence based upon its lack of knowledge of the danger of asbestos or its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect Roberts. Rather, PSI contends that the trial court should have granted its motion for judgment on the evidence because there was no evidence that PSI should have expected that Roberts would not discover or realize the danger, or would fail to protect himself against it. PSI argues that it had the right to expect that ACandS’s “professional asbestos workers would be cognizant of the hazards of asbestos exposure they routinely encountered on a daily basis in the course of their occupation, and that they would take whatever precautions they deemed appropriate to protect themselves.” Appellant’s Brief at 60. PSI points out that Roberts was an experienced, professional asbestos worker who recognized asbestos when he saw it. PSI contends that it “rightfully expected” that ACandS would warn its employees of the hazards of asbestos and Roberts would be familiar with such hazards. Further, PSI argues that there is no evidence that PSI had superior knowledge to ACandS of the dangers of asbestos.
    In response, Roberts argues that PSI had actual knowledge that Roberts and the other insulators were not protecting themselves. Further, Roberts contends that ACandS’s knowledge regarding the danger of asbestos cannot be imputed to Roberts. Moreover, even if ACandS’s knowledge could be imputed, Roberts argues that “PSI would still be liable if the evidence supports an inference that PSI could have and should have anticipated that the dangerous condition (air contaminated with airborne asbestos fibers) would cause physical harm to Roberts notwithstanding its known or obvious danger.” Appellee’s Brief at 34.
A.     Analysis under Section 343(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
As noted above, a condition of liability under Section 343(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is that the landowner “should expect that [the invitees] will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it.” (emphasis added). Thus, a condition of liability is that PSI “should [have] expect[ed] that [Roberts] [would] not discover or realize the danger” or “should [have] expect[ed] that [Roberts] . . . [would] fail to protect [himself] against it.” Roberts argues that the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment on the evidence because PSI had actual knowledge that Roberts was failing to protect himself from the dangers of the asbestos. PSI’s corporate representative, Hank Hammond, testified that he frequently saw ACandS’s insulators performing work at the PSI plants in the 1960’s and 1970’s. He never saw the ACandS employees taking any precautions to protect themselves from breathing the asbestos insulation. Hammond also recalled occasions where senior members of PSI’s management were present while contractors from ACandS did insulation work. Consequently, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that PSI should have expected that Roberts would fail to protect himself against the dangers. Because PSI does not contest the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the evidence based upon Section 343(a) or 343(c) of the Restatement, sufficient evidence was presented to establish liability under Section 343.
B.    Analysis under Section 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Because we must read Section 343 together with Section 343A, we will also address PSI’s contention that it had the right to expect that Roberts, as a professional asbestos worker, would realize the danger of PSI’s asbestos work. As noted above, Section 343A provides that: “A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by an activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” Comment b to Section 343A provides that:
[t]he word “known” denotes not only knowledge of the existence of the condition or activity itself, but also appreciation of the danger it involves. Thus the condition or activity must not only be known to exist, but it must also be recognized that it is dangerous, and the probability and gravity of the threatened harm must be appreciated. “Obvious” means that both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising ordinary perception, intelligence, and judgment.

We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that: (1) the danger was not known or obvious to Roberts; and (2) PSI should have anticipated the harm.
In arguing that it had the right to expect that ACandS would warn its employees of the hazards of asbestos and Roberts would realize the danger, PSI relies, in part, upon our holdings in Watson v. Ziegert, 616 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), and Merrill, 771 N.E.2d at 1264-66. In Watson, the contractor, Watson, went to Ziegert’s home to dismantle a television tower that was forty feet tall. Id. at 785. Watson noticed that the tower was old and rusted. Id. at 786. While Watson was dismantling the tower, the tower fell onto a neighbor’s roof, causing Watson to sustain serious injuries. Id. Watson and Ziegert disagreed as to whether Ziegert told Watson that the tower was old and rusted. Id.
In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Ziegert, we analyzed the situation under Sections 343 and 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Id. 787. We held that Ziegert did not need to warn Watson because Ziegert “couldn’t tell Watson anything he did not know.” Id. at 787. Watson was invited onto Ziegert’s property for the purpose of dismantling the tower. Id. The age and rust were “easily observable” and, thus, were conditions that Ziegert rightfully expected would be noticed by Watson. Id. at 788. Furthermore, we also held that “Ziegert rightfully expected Watson, an experienced person at dismantling towers, would take the proper precautions to guard against any additional hazards resulting from the easily observable conditions.” Id.
Watson is distinguishable from this case because the danger in Watson, i.e., the tower’s age and rust, was easily observable. Here, although the asbestos was easily observable, the danger was not so obvious. The jury was presented with conflicting evidence as to whether Roberts, as an experienced insulator, would have been aware of the dangers. Although evidence was presented indicating that Roberts received union newsletters in the 1960’s and 1970’s describing the dangers of asbestos, Roberts testified that he was not aware of the dangers of asbestos until the 1980’s. The jury also heard conflicting evidence as to PSI’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos. PSI does not argue that Roberts’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos was superior to PSI’s knowledge. Because the jury heard conflicting evidence as to Roberts’s and PSI’s comparative knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, it was for the jury to interpret the conflicting evidence. Cf. Ozinga Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Ash Sales, Inc., 676 N.E.2d 379, 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (holding that “NIPSCO’s comparative knowledge was no greater than that of Schroeder and NIPSCO could not have informed Schroeder of any facts of which he was not already aware”), reh’g denied, trans. denied.
In Merrill, the landowner, Knauf, discovered that the roofs on its warehouses needed repairs. Id. at 1261. Knauf hired Ellerman Roofing to perform the repairs. Id. at 1261-1262. Knauf repeatedly warned Ellerman Roofing’s owner and employees that the roofs had skylights and a Knauf employee had fallen through a skylight years earlier. Id. at 1262. During the repairs, Merrill, an employee of Ellerman Roofing, was distracted by a coworker, stepped onto a skylight, and fell through it. Id.
In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Knauf, we discussed Merrill’s premises liability theory. Id. at 1264-1265. Merrill argued that Knauf was liable because it was under a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees, including the employees of independent contractors. Id. at 1265. We noted that Knauf had repeatedly warned Ellerman Roofing of the skylight’s dangers and “[t]he warnings to Merrill’s superiors were warnings to Merrill, ‘the employment relation permitting a reasonable assumption that such notice will be communicated in the ordinary course to all employees on the work.’” Id. (quoting Howard, 509 N.E.2d at 205). Furthermore, Merrill admitted that he knew that the skylights were dangerous. Id. Thus, under Sections 343 and 343A of the Restatement, “Knauf could be liable for Merrill’s injuries only if Knauf should have anticipated that Merrill would fail to protect himself despite his knowledge and if, despite such, Knauf failed to exercise reasonable care to protect Merrill.” Id. In determining this issue, we consider the “purpose and intent of the invitation . . . and the comparative knowledge of the parties.” Id. We held that Knauf was not liable to Merrill, because under the circumstances, Knauf could not have anticipated such events given the circumstances surrounding the invitation and the comparable knowledge of the parties. Id. at 1266.
We find Merrill distinguishable from the current matter for a number of reasons. First, Knauf repeatedly warned the roofing company’s owner that the skylights were dangerous. Here, PSI did not warn ACandS or its employees that the asbestos dust that PSI’s employees were generating was dangerous. Additionally, and most importantly, Knauf had no notice that Merrill or other roofing company employees were walking on skylights and not taking precautions to protect themselves. Here, over the period that Roberts and others were working on the premises, PSI had actual notice and knowledge that the asbestos workers were not taking precautions to protect themselves.
PSI cannot continue to rely on what might have been a reasonable expectation at the outset where activities inconsistent with that expectation continued for a number of years. As noted above, PSI’s corporate representative, Hank Hammond, testified that he frequently saw ACandS’s insulators performing work at the PSI plants in the 1960’s and 1970’s. He never saw the ACandS employees taking any precautions to protect themselves from breathing the asbestos insulation. Hammond also recalled occasions where senior members of PSI’s management were present while contractors from ACandS did insulation work. Had Knauf known that Merrill and others were walking on the skylights, Knauf would not have been protected from liability by the expectation that they would not do so. Consequently, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to determine under Section 343A that PSI should have anticipated the harm. Thus, PSI’s arguments regarding Section 343A fail for two reasons: (1) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the danger was not known or obvious to Roberts; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that PSI should have anticipated the harm.
In summary, this case emphasizes the importance of our standard of review. As noted above, “[i]f there is relevant evidence which supports the verdict, then the motion may not properly be granted because evidence which supports the verdict is sufficient evidence, and the final determination is left to the fact finder.” Huff, 421-422, 363 N.E.2d at 990. As our supreme court recently noted in Smith:
Because we must look only to the evidence and the reasonable inferences most favorable to the plaintiff as a non-moving party, and because the motion for judgment on the evidence is proper only where there is no substantial evidence supporting an essential issue in the case, we decline to reverse the trial court. The interpretation of the evidence, with the necessary assessments of weight and credibility, was properly left to the sound judgment of the jury.

Smith, 796 N.E.2d at 246. When the evidence is interpreted in a light most favorable to Robertses, it is clear that there was evidence supporting the essential elements of the Robertses’ premises liability theory. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying PSI’s motions for judgment on the evidence or motion to correct error on the Robertses’ premises liability theory. See, e.g., id. (holding that the trial court did not err by denying a motion for judgment on the evidence).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions for judgment on the evidence and motion to correct error.
    Affirmed.
BAKER, J. and BROOK, C. J. concur

after another party carrying the burden of proof or of going forward with the evidence upon any one or more issues has completed presentation of his evidence thereon; or
after all the parties have completed presentation of the evidence upon any one or more issues; or
after all the evidence in the case has been presented and before judgment; or
in a motion to correct errors; or
may raise the issue upon appeal for the first time in criminal appeals but not in civil cases; or
The trial court upon its own motion may enter such a judgment on the evidence at any time before final judgment, or before the filing of a notice of appeal, or, if a Motion to Correct Error is made, at any time before entering its order or ruling thereon. A party who moves for judgment on the evidence at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a judgment on the evidence which is not granted or which is granted only as to a part of the issues is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for judgment on the evidence. A motion for judgment on the evidence made at one stage of the proceedings is not a waiver of the right of the court or of any party to make such motion on the same or different issues or reasons at a later stage as permitted above, except that error of the court in denying the motion shall be deemed corrected by evidence thereafter offered or admitted.