For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Focus (Forum & Focus)

Mar. 17, 2009

Grounds Control

Courts use a sliding-scale balancing test when determining the "forseeability" of certain crimes.

FOCUS COLUMN

By Michael Paul Thomas

I n Yu Fang Tan v. Arnel Management Co., 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 754 (2009), the 2nd District Court of Appeal discussed the Supreme Court line of cases establishing a sliding-scale balancing formula when conducting "forseeability" analysis for duty purposes in third-party criminal assault cases.

Perhaps more significantly, in the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Tan court presented a cogent discussi...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.