On June 5, 1998, WLF filed a brief in the California Supreme Court, asking the court to reject any further expansion of “premises liability” doctrine under which property owners are held responsible for injuries incurred by visitors as a result of random acts of criminal violence. WLF’s brief argued that property owners should not be required to guard against criminal attacks unless the failure to do so makes such attacks “highly foreseeable.” In the case before the court, a plaintiff who was raped at knife point while getting out of her car in an office building parking lot is suing the owner of the building, even though in the 11 prior years that the defendant had owned the building there had been zero similar attacks in or around the parking lot. WLF argued that it makes little sense to require society as a whole to bear the costs of the expensive crime-prevention measures that the plaintiff argues should have been employed in areas without any history of violent crime