Tenant locked himself out of his apartment. Landlord did not have an on-premises manager or a 24-hour call line, or any other means for tenant to reenter his apartment, so he climbed to the roof and tried to jump down to his balcony. He missed and suffered significant injuries. The trial court erred in holding that the landlord owed him no duty of care. The base line in premises liability cases is that the owner owes a duty of care. The Rowland v. Christian factors are considered only to determine whether there is an exception to that general rule. And in evaluating those factors the court considers them at a high level of factual abstraction. Here, it was reasonably foreseeable that a tenant without any other way into his apartment would try extreme measures, and the landlord’s failure to provide other means of reentry and failure to block off access to the roof foreseeably led to the injury here. Though the danger of jumping from the roof was obvious, the obvious danger exception to a landowner’s duty of care is itself subject to exception when the plaintiff must encounter the danger anyway as a necessity as it allegedly was here.