dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion, which, in effect, holds that a business owner who is aware of prior criminal activity in the immediate vicinity of the owner’s place of business is under a duty to either warn potential customers of the criminal activity or to provide security to business invitees.
The majority extends this state’s doctrine of what it characterizes as “premises liability” far beyond any of this court’s previous holdings. This court has previously considered pure premises liability to arise out of a defect or condition of the premises, rather than from the acts of third parties. See, e.g., Ellis v. Far-Mar-Co, 215 Neb. 736, 340 N.W.2d 423 (1983) (holding that accident which occurred when employees failed to move grain cars in reasonable manner was not a case of premises liability). However, in the present case, the majority is willing to impose “premises liability” upon a defendant for the independent and random criminal acts of a third party.
Citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965), the majority has found that Erichsen’s allegation of 10 incidents of criminal activity in the vicinity of the No-Frills parking lot during the previous 16 months is sufficient to raise a factual question whether the attack on Erichsen was foreseeable by No-Frills.
The issue of foreseeability was discussed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Cook v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 354 A.2d 507 (D.C. App. 1976), a case with facts strikingly similar to the one before us. In Cook, a customer at a grocery store attempted to restrain a man who had taken her wallet from her shopping cart. When the customer grabbed the man’s arm, the man struck her in the face with his fist and ran from the store. The customer sued Safeway to recover for her personal injuries sustained in the incident.
*246Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the store was located in a high-crime area, that similar incidents had occurred there and in the adjacent streets, that assaults on customers were foreseeable by store management, and that the store had a duty to provide guard service. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Safeway after plaintiff’s opening statement, holding that plaintiff had not stated a cause of action.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court. That court noted that crime was foreseeable, but held that the act of the customer in attempting to physically restrain a purse-snatcher was not one which the storekeeper could anticipate, and thus, the events leading to the customer’s injury were not foreseeable by Safeway.
Quoting Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of Newark, 38 N. J. 578, 186 A.2d 291 (1962), the court stated:
“Everyone can foresee the commission of crime virtually anywhere and at any time. If foreseeability itself gave rise to a duty to provide ‘police’ protection for others, every residential curtilage, every shop, every store, every manufacturing plant would have to be patrolled by the private arms of the owner. And since hijacking and attack upon occupants of motor vehicles are also foreseeable, it would be the duty of every motorist to provide armed protection for his passengers and the property of others. Of course, none of this is at all palatable.
“The question is not simply whether a criminal event is foreseeable, but whether a duty exists to take measures to guard against it....”
Cook, 354 A.2d at 509-10.
Similarly, while a purse-snatching in the No-Frills parking lot is certainly foreseeable by both No-Frills and Erichsen, it is utterly unforeseeable by No-Frills that a purse-snatching victim in the parking lot would somehow become entangled in the seatbelt of her assailant’s automobile and be dragged 1.6 miles. By its holding that “many” occasions of “ ‘similar’ ” criminal activity in an area may be sufficient to make further criminal acts foreseeable, the majority has done no more than state the obvious and has created a broad category of civil liability for business owners in Nebraska. I would adopt a more narrow *247analysis and hold that Erichsen’s petition failed to state a cause of action because No-Frills could not possibly have foreseen the bizarre events leading to Erichsen’s injuries.
Having determined that criminal acts in its parking lot were foreseeable by No-Frills, the majority concludes that Erichsen has pled sufficient facts to impose some amorphous duty of reasonable care upon No-Frills. However, the majority declines to determine in what way No-Frills might have met its duty to Erichsen, stating that “^peculating on the cost of given measures in light of their relative benefit is not within the province of this court.” If the majority is unwilling or unable to more clearly define the duty of a business owner to customers, the matter should be left to the Legislature and not to speculation of the business owner.
Although in some cases it may be inappropriate for the court to speculate on how a defendant may meet a duty, the cases cited by the majority do not support this proposition. In none of the three cases cited by the court was the issue of duty before the court. Both Anderson v. Service Merchandise Co., 240 Neb. 873, 485 N.W.2d 170 (1992), and Nownes v. Hillside Lounge, Inc., 179 Neb. 157, 137 N.W.2d 361 (1965), dealt with the issue of whether the instrumentality of harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant for purposes of res ipsa loquitur. In Havlicek v. Desai, 225 Neb. 222, 403 N.W.2d 386 (1987), the defendant acknowledged that he had a duty to keep his business premises safe for the plaintiff’s use. Therefore, it was not necessary in any of the three cases for the court to speculate on the extent of the defendant business owners’ duties.
On the other hand, this court has in some cases defined the duty which it imposed upon a defendant. See, e.g., Schmidt v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 245 Neb. 776, 515 N.W.2d 756 (1994) (holding that defendant underground utility clearinghouse had duty to warn callers that only equipment owned by member utilities would be located and to specifically warn that secondary electric lines in a commercial setting would not be located by the member electric company).
By offering no guidance as to how such business owners may conduct their businesses within the bounds of the law, the majority imposes an unreasonable burden upon business *248owners. Because the majority refuses to speculate, it is now well-intentioned business owners who are left to speculate as to what duty is owed to customers or prospective customers in the store parking lot. Thus, the majority has set the classic “trap for the unwary,” for only when the litigation trap is sprung will the business owner finally learn the extent of the duty owed.
According to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965), a business may meet its duty to its customers by either giving an adequate warning or providing protection. To hold that a business owner has a duty to warn of potential criminal activity in the vicinity of the owner’s business is to require the owner to warn of the obvious: The world is a dangerous place. Random acts of crime and violence against the person are rampant in today’s society and are of epidemic proportions. This is common knowledge and is sufficient to put everyone on notice that a person can be mugged any time, any place. I would find a warning in such a situation to be a futile and unreasonable requirement.
The alternative to warning invitees is for business owners to “provide protection.” Presumably, this means that the business is required to hire security guards for the premises.
Even with all of modern technology, the existence of armed police does not prevent crime and violence in society at large, for an obvious reason: The police cannot be in all places at all times. Similarly, armed security officers are unable to prevent crime and violence in the microcosm of a parking lot. Security officers themselves have been the victims of violent crime while on duty. See, e.g., State v. Brock, 245 Neb. 315, 512 N.W.2d 389 (1994) (security officer shot while attempting to apprehend shoplifter). Moreover, security officers are ordinarily hired for the purpose of protecting the business itself against criminal activity, and any benefit to customers is incidental thereto.
There is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect, or to warn, an invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself. Bruyninga v. Nuss, 216 Neb. 801, 346 N.W.2d 245 (1984). Because I would find that the hazard of random criminal activity is as well known to customers such as Erichsen as it is to businesses such as *249No-Frills, I would hold that No-Frills had no duty to either warn or protect Erichsen.
Finally, while recognizing that the owner of property is not an insurer of the owner’s land or the visitor’s safety in a parking lot, the majority has, in fact, made business owners the insurers of the safety of invitees. The economic impact of such duties is certain to be especially disastrous to low-profit-margin businesses. The grocery business comes to mind.
Must the business owner erect a billboard in the owner’s parking lot to advise potential customers of the perils of possible victimhood to which they may fall prey should they decide to exit their vehicles? Yes, according to the Restatement, supra at comment g. at 226 (rule applies “not only to make it the possessor’s duty to protect his visitors after they have entered the land, but also to warn them before their entry of any acts or threatened acts of third persons which may endanger them if they enter” (emphasis supplied)). Once such a billboard is in place, will potential customers ever become actual customers? It seems unlikely that any business could survive such a “warning.” The rule is unrealistic in today’s world.
Additionally, the provision of a full panoply of security personnel is inconsistent with the basic premise of “no-frills” or discount retail operations; that is, the business saves money by providing less service but passes along this saving to the customer in the form of lower prices. To the extent that the courts impose a duty upon these establishments to hire additional personnel, they contribute to the economic demise of such businesses.
Moreover, I cannot imagine any insurance company in the world which would be willing to insure a business against intentional criminal acts of third parties directed at actual or potential customers of that business. The entire burden of this uninsurable risk thus falls upon the business owner.
For the reasons discussed above, I disagree with the majority that the events leading to Erichsen’s injury were foreseeable, and I find the potential amorphous duties on business owners inherent in the majority’s opinion to be both unreasonable and economically disastrous. I would affirm the order of the district court sustaining the defendants’ demurrers.