The rationale underlying this general rule is the fact that "[c]riminal activity, by its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable." Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich. App. 40, 46-47; 439 N.W.2d 280 (1989). Our Court in Papadimas, id. at 47, quoting Prosser Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 33, p 201, emphasized that "`[u]nder all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the criminal law.'"
Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich. 495; 418 N.W.2d 381 (1988). See also Harkins v Northwest Activity Center, Inc, 434 Mich. 895; 453 N.W.2d 677 (1990), and Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich. App. 40; 439 N.W.2d 280 (1989), and cases cited therein. We disagree.
Further, although a person who talks on a cordless telephone may know that technology makes it possible for others to overhear the conversation, that person also can presume that others will obey the criminal law. See Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich. App. 40, 47; 439 N.W.2d 280 (1989); Prosser Keeton, Torts (5th ed) § 33, p 201. Thus, although the victim may have known that her cordless telephone conversations could be wilfully intercepted with a device, she also could presume that others would not eavesdrop on her cordless telephone conversations using any device because doing so is a felony under the eavesdropping statutes, and is additionally prohibited by federal law.
The Michigan court, in holding that a restaurant owner was not liable for a criminal assault on its patrons, found that "[c]riminal activity, by its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable." Papadimas v. Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich. App. 40, 439 N.W.2d 280, 283 (1989). The Papadimas court further found that although the risk of an unknown assailant might be more foreseeable in a high-crime area, it would not impose a higher standard of duty in those areas, stating that "[a]lthough crime occurs more frequently in certain areas of our cities and particular portions of the state, we again decline to apply a higher standard of duty in such so-called high crime areas."
"The rationale underlying this general rule is the fact that '[c]riminal activity, by its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable.' " Graves, 253 Mich App at 493, quoting Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich App 40, 46-47; 439 NW2d 280 (1989). This Court previously has "emphasized that under all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the criminal law."
Criminal conduct is generally unforeseeable because a landowner may "reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the criminal law." Graves v Warner Bros, 253 Mich App 486, 493; 656 NW2d 195 (2002), quoting Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich App 40, 46-47; 439 NW2d 280 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). In MacDonald, the Michigan Supreme Court held that merchants, or landowners inviting others onto their land for commercial purposes, are only required to respond reasonably to criminal acts that occur on the premises.
The basis for this rule is that "'[c]riminal activity, by its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable.'" Id., quoting Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich App 40, 46-47; 439 NW2d 280 (1989). Landmark admitted to fraud in obtaining disbursements from plaintiffs' loan proceeds, and those actions fit the elements of criminal larceny by conversion.
This is because "[c]riminal activity, by its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable." Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich App 40, 46-47; 439 NW2d 280 (1989). However, our Supreme Court has noted, "`Even criminal conduct by others is often reasonably to be anticipated.'"
Moreover, there is no duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party in the absence of a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff or the defendant and the third party. Id.; Phillips v Deihm, 213 Mich. App. 389, 397; 541 N.W.2d 566 (1995); Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich. App. 40, 46-47; 439 N.W.2d 280 (1989). The underlying rationale for this rule is the fact that "[c]riminal activity, by its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable."
Ante at ________________. Because the applicable legal duty is an issue of law, Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 436-437; 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977); Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich. App. 40, 45; 439 N.W.2d 280 (1989), an evidentiary offer of proof is not appropriate or required. See, generally, MRE 103(a)(2).