[dragonwriter]

Not only would they suggest it, but ISTR that there's plenty of examples (where the crime involved targeted other people on the premises, rather than business owner themselves) were knowingly making business choices that create an environment where crimes are easy and common has been found to be a source of legal responsibility of the business to the victims of the crime (with no reduction in the legal liability of the actual perpetrators.)

[brandonmenc]

> where the crime involved targeted other people on the premises

That seems to be a key difference.

[dragonwriter]

> That seems to be a key difference.

Well, its key in that people never have tort liability to themselves, so it would never come up otherwise. But, nevertheless, it illustrates that the idea that a property/business owner making conscious decisions that predictably attract crime to their premises bears some responsibility for the resulting harms is not at all foreign to our society.