No Foreseeability, No Duty, No-Frills - The Nebraska Supreme Court Imposes a Duty in Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets of Omaha, Inc.
Loading...
Authors
Guttau-Fox, Heidi A.
Issue Date
1996
Volume
29
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|For almost fifty years, Nebraska law has required that a business owner use reasonable care to warn or protect business invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts. The Nebraska Supreme Court has often addressed the issue of whether a criminal act is reasonably foreseeable so as to impose a duty on a business owner.|In the case of Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets of Omaha, Inc., the Nebraska Supreme Court again addressed the issue of a business owner's duty to a business invitee. In Erichsen, the court imposed a duty on business owners to use reasonable care to keep their premises safe for business invitees from the criminal acts of third parties.|This Note will first discuss the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court in Erichsen. This Note next examines the history of decisions from Nebraska and other jurisdictions involving the imposition of a duty upon a business owner in regard to third party criminal acts. This Note will then analyze the reasoning of the court in Erichsen in terms of the court's interpretation of foreseeability, known and obvious dangers, and policy factors. This Note concludes that, based upon past precedent, the Nebraska Supreme Court erred both in holding that No-Frills owed a duty to protect Erichsen from harm and in failing to define the duty owed to business invitees...
Description
Citation
29 Creighton L. Rev. 439 (1995-1996)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law