Brendan McKown v. Simon Property Group Inc

ORDER

For the reasons explained below, we respectfully certify to the Washington Supreme Court the following questions:

1) Does Washington adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965), including comments d and f, as controlling law? See Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner, 133 Wash.2d 192 , 943 P.2d 286 (1997).

2) To create a genuine issue of material fact as to the foreseeability of the harm resulting from a third party’s criminal act when the defendant did not know of the dangerous propensities of the individual responsible for the criminal act, must a plaintiff show previous acts of similar violence on the premises, or can the plaintiff establish reasonably foreseeable harm through other evidence? See Wilbert v. Metro. Park Dist. of Tacoma, 90 Wash.App. 304 , 950 P.2d 522 (1998); see also Fuentes v. Port of Seattle, 119 Wash.App. 864 , 82 P.3d 1175 (2004); Craig v. Wash. Trust Bank, 94 Wash.App. 820 , 976 P.2d 126 (1999); Raider v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 94 Wash.App. 816 , 975 P.2d 518 (1999); cf. Nivens, 943 P.2d 286 ; Christen v. Lee, 113 Wash.2d 479 , 780 P.2d 1307 (1989); Passovoy v. Nordstrom, Inc., 52 Wash.App. 166 , 758 P.2d 524 (1988), review denied, 112 Wash.2d 1001 ,…