Fancil v. Q.S.E. Foods, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding premises owner had no duty to protect when the risk the police officer was subjected to was one inherent in that occupation
• acknowledging the defendant may have a duty to protect another from the risk of intentional or criminal conduct under certain circumstances when the defendant has a special relationship with the victim or the wrongdoer as stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965)
• recognizes invitee/licensee distinction but concludes that a policeman who was fatally shot by a criminal when he entered a poorly lit store in the middle of the night was a licensee, and not an invitee
• recognizes invitee/licensee distinction but concludes that a policeman who was fatally shot by a criminal when he entered a poorly lit store in the middle of the night was a licensee, and not an invitee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).