Legal Opinion

Nivens v. Corner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 1997No. 64512-4PublishedCited by 98 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTalmadge, J.

— We must decide if a business owes a duty to its invitees to protect them from criminal acts by third persons on the business premises. Because a business has a special relationship with them, it has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from imminent criminal harm or reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct by third persons.

Appellant Nivens also asks us to decide if a business owes a distinct duty to invitees to retain security personnel to prevent criminal acts by third parties. Because we believe such a duty would impermissibly shift responsibility from government to private…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Petersen v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
  4. McLeod v. Grant County School District No. 128Washington Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Hansen v. FriendWashington Supreme Court · 1992

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by98 opinions

  1. Lybbert v. Grant CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1999
  4. CJC v. Corporation of Catholic BishopWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic BishopWashington Supreme Court · 1999

93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API