In Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets, a woman who was shopping was seriously injured by a robber in the parking lot. She sued the store claiming that its failure to provide adequate security was a breach of its duty to her. The Nebraska high court held that the store could:

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The correct answer is not provided among the options, as the Nebraska high court actually held that the store could be liable because it had a duty to protect its customers from foreseeable criminal acts, and the question of foreseeability and the adequacy of the store's security measures are typically questions for a jury to decide. None of the provided options accurately reflect this rationale.

In Erichsen V