Krass v. Tri-County Security, Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing negligence, and its included concept of duty, in the context of a failure to protect someone from a third party’s criminal acts
• reviewing the appeal under the standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) based on the substance of the court’s ruling even though motions were filed under (C)(8) and (10) and the trial court did not specify under which standard it ruled
• “Simply put, therefore, if Baldini, Inc., owed no duty to Steven G. Krass as its business invitee, then neither, on a derivative basis, did Tri–County.”
• noting the differing standards between MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10)
• “As did the Court in Scott, we hold that a merchant, and the security company it hires, who voluntarily take safety precautions related to the general threat of crime cannot be sued on the theory that the safety precautions were less effective than they could or should have been.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).