‘Not Foreseeable:’ Starbucks, Landowner Not Liable for Second Vehicle Crash in a Decade

“Defendants owed no duty to protect plaintiffs from the negligent acts of a third party because the negligence was not foreseeable, and imposing a duty under these facts would be against public policy,” the court said.

       

“Defendants owed no duty to protect plaintiffs from the negligent acts of a third party because the negligence was not foreseeable, and imposing a duty under these facts would be against public policy,” the court said.