We granted review in this case to consider important issues concerning the liability of apartment owners and other business enterprises to persons injured on their premises by the criminal acts of others, a liability based solely on the business owners’ negligent failure to provide adequate security measures to protect those who enter their property.  The difficulty in resolving these issues is enhanced by the need to balance two important and competing policy concerns:  society’s interest in compensating persons injured by another’s negligent acts, and its reluctance to impose unrealistic financial burdens on property owners conducting legitimate business enterprises on their premises. 

In this case, we attempt to balance these interests consistent with prior case precedent.  As will appear, we conclude (contrary to the Court of Appeal below) that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendants based on plaintiff’s failure adequately to demonstrate that defendants’ negligence was an actual, legal cause of her injuries.  Here, plaintiff alleged she was assaulted on defendants’ premises by unknown assailants after she attempted to deliver a package to an apartment resident.  Although plaintiff’s evidence raised triable issues as to whether defendants owed her a duty of care and breached that duty by failing to provide additional security guards or functioning, locked security gates, her evidence was insufficient to show, as a triable factual issue, that defendants’ asserted breach of duty actually caused her injuries.  Plaintiff acknowledges that her assailants were never apprehended and their identity remains unknown to her.  Accordingly, she is unable to prove they would not have succeeded in assaulting her if defendants had provided additional security precautions.