Was her entry connected with an activity the owner conducted or permitted to be

Was her entry connected with an activity the owner

This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 3 pages.

Was her entry connected with an activity the owner conducted or permitted to be conducted on the land? Was there a mutuality of benefit or a benefit to the owner? The court determined that the first two parts of the test could be subject to reasonable dispute but concluded that as a matter of law the plaintiff failed to meet the third part of the test, finding that any “public relations benefit” to the defendant was “too remote to confer invitee status.” The court also used a voluntary-undertaking analysis and found that North Park had voluntarily undertaken to provide security measures and that it had an obligation to provide reasonable 1 Public invitee: Is who is invited and enters the land for the purpose in which the land is held open to the public. 2 Voluntary-Undertaking Doctrine: A defendant may be found liable even though it has no legal duty to protect the plaintiff.
Image of page 2
protection to the plaintiff. The court further found that North Park had not been negligent in preventing the crime against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had failed to prove that the assault against her had been foreseeable.
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 3 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes