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.
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.