Erichsen went grocery shopping at No-Frills one morning. When she returned to her car, she was assaulted, beaten, robbed, and dragged over one mile hanging from the car of her assailant, suffering serious injuries. She sued No-Frills and the owner of the shopping center for negligently failing to warn her of criminal activity, and for failing to protect her from criminal activities that were foreseeable because of 10 criminal events in the previous 16-month period. The trial court held that defendants did not violate a duty of care to Erichsen.
She appealed.

1. The Nebraska high court held it was for the jury to determine if the store violated its duty to take more precautions to protect patrons against criminal attack. Why should this store do any more than any other store?
2. Can a store afford to have full-time security guards? Is that required in cases such as this one?