Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes

How courts have described this case

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

• holding criminal perpetrators’ testimony surrounding their movements and planning to be “clearly material to the question of whether the presence of additional security might have prevented the attack”
• holding “there is a residual obligation of reasonable care to protect business invitees from the acts of third persons.”
• explaining that the availability of punitive damages depends upon whether a defendant’s conduct is “outrageous,” because of “evil motive” or “reckless indifference to the rights of others.”
• holding criminal perpetrators' testimony surrounding their movements and planning to be \clearly material to the question of whether the presence of additional security might have prevented the attack\
• limiting the foreseeability standard to the same crime as the one complained of is unrealistic because “[s]o called ‘property crimes,’ such as shoplifting, may turn violent if a chase ensues-”
• finding the act, “the decision to provide limited security in areas to which the public has been invited,” to satisfy the first element.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).