Victim A. v. Chung Song

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that criminal activity can be foreseeable when “specific acts occur[] . . . that pose a risk of imminent and foreseeable harm to an identifiable” -12- Nos. 22-1740/1764, McDowell v. Livonia Hotel Business, Inc. individual
• holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties
• “Whether an invitee is readily identifiable as being foreseeably endangered is a question for the factfinder if reasonable minds could differ on this point.”
• “Whether an invitee is readily identifiable as being foreseeably endangered is a question for the factfinder if reasonable minds could differ on this point.”
• “[A]s a matter of law, fulfilling the duty to respond requires only that a merchant make reasonable efforts to contact the police.”
• “A premises owner’s duty is limited to responding reasonably to situations occurring on the premises because, as a matter of public policy, we should not expect invitors to assume that others will disobey the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).