Facts: maria kerkoulas owned the pub zone bar, frequented by many motorcycle gangs, and knew from her own experiencustomers for no reason. kerkoulas posted a sign prohibiting any motorcycle gangs from entering the bar while wearing "cviolence. rhino, backdraft, and several other pagans pushed past the bouncer wearing colors and approached the bar. although shbelieved they were departing. in fact, they followed a customer named karl kuehn to the men’s room, where without any pkuehn sued the pub zone. the jury awarded him $300,000 in damages. the trial court judge overruled the jury’s verdict anot have foreseen the attack on kuehn, and had no duty to protect him from an outlaw motorcycle gang. kuehn appealed. issue: did the pub zone have a duty to protect kuehn from the pagans’ attack? holding: yes. whether a duty exists depends upon an evaluation of a number of factors including the nature of the underlrelationships between or among the parties, and, based on considerations of public policy and fairness, the societal interesince the possessor [of a business] is not an insurer of the visitor’s safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any cahowever, know or have reason to know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persany particular individual. the totality of the circumstances presented in this case give rise to a duty on the part of the pub zone to have taken reasopagan of violent conduct, but kerkoulas knew the gang collectively had engaged in random violence. thus, kerkoulas hadthird persons in general that was likely to endanger the safety of a patron at some unspecified future time.