Question: Compare the Weiner decision with a case from Chapter 1: Kuehn v. Pub Zone, on...

Transcribed Image Text:

Question: Compare the Weiner decision with a case from Chapter 1: Kuehn v. Pub Zone, on pages 16-17. Both are negligence cases in which the harm is caused by criminal conduct. However, the two cases have opposite outcomes. Why is that? Strategy: What standard did the Pub Zone court use to decide that the bar owner was liable? Who won? Apply the same standard to the Weiner case. Who should win? Result: The Pub Zone court declared that a property owner was not an insurer against criminal acts, but would be liable if the violent conduct was foreseeable, based on experience. Kerkoulas knew from earlier incidents that gang members wearing insignia presented a danger to patrons, and she was liable when violence erupted. In the Weiner case, the court used the same standard, but found there was no history of violence at the day care center. Harm to the children was unforeseeable. The law was the same in both cases, but different facts led to contrasting results.