Cunningham v. Happy Palace, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the question was “whether [the] defendant could have foreseen that [the] plaintiff would fall victim to a criminal act” (emphasis added)
• reversing summary judgment because there was “evidence from which a jury could find that defendant could have reasonably foreseen that it was placing plaintiff at risk of criminal assault by forcing her to leave the safety of the restaurant before she could arrange for transportation home”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).