In Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993), the Supreme Court found that instead of a landowner's duty of care turning on the common-law designation of the party injured, the determination "whether a person owes a duty of reasonable care toward another should turn on whether the imposition of such a duty satisfies an abiding sense of basic fairness under all of the circumstances in light of considerations of public policy." Id. at 439, 625 A.2d 1110. These factors include "the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution." Ibid.