Cal Western runs a law school at 350 Cedar Street in a San Diego building it owns, possesses and controls. Cal Western provides no parking for its students at or near its law school. On January 30, 1984, Cal Western's library and school grounds were open for student use until midnight. About 10 p.m., Cal Western law student William Donnell left Cal Western's building after studying in its library and headed toward his parked car. While walking along the west side of Cal Western's building, William was attacked, stabbed and injured by an unknown assailant. William called for help, but no security personnel came to his assistance. Cal Western's building had no exterior lights on its west side. No security guards patrolled the building's west side.

Donnell filed suit against Cal Western School of Law alleging that it knew criminal activity had occurred in the immediate area but negligently failed to provide adequate lighting and security around the law school building. Students, including William, going to and from the law school were forced to traverse the dangerous area because Cal Western did not provide parking for its students. Despite knowing about prior criminal activity perpetrated on persons and property around its law school premises, Defendant did not warn William of the dangerous conditions, provide adequate security forces or otherwise safeguard law school students from criminal acts. William sought compensatory damages and punitive damages. His wife Nancy sought damages for loss of consortium.

Defendant Cal Western asserted that as a matter of law it had no legal duty to protect William from crimes occurring on the public sidewalk. Generally, "a landowner has no right to control and manage premises owned by another." (Steinmetz v. Stockton City Chamber of Commerce, 169 Cal.App.3d at p. 1147)

Donnell further argues, contending Cal Western's two "coexisting" special relationships with William -- the school-student special relationship and the landholder-business invitee relationship -- required Cal Western to take reasonable, inexpensive measures to protect him from foreseeable criminal assault on the city-owned sidewalk bordering the school.

Donnell contends Cal Western had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect its invitees from foreseeable criminal assaults on sidewalks giving immediate access to its building. Donnell asserts Cal Western had the power to "control" the sidewalk by placing lights on its own building to shine on the sidewalk. Donnell also argues Cal Western should have mounted exterior monitors on its building walls to permit its students to view the dangerous area before traversing it.

As a member of the jury, based on the evidence provided above, what party is best supported by governing law? Please provide the basis of law and the supporting facts to support your answer. What facts, if different, would change your mind as juror as to the outcome of this trial?