criminal acts and the applicable foreseeability standard, D.C. courts consider the negligence theory being advanced and the circumstances of each case. “The question is not simply whether a criminal event is foreseeable, but whether a duty exists to take measures to guard against it ... [, which] is ultimately a question of fairness.” Romero, 749 F.2d at 79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). There are two lines of cases in which a lesser degree of specificity is required with respect to evidence of foreseeability: those involving either (1) “a special relationship between the parties to the suit” or (2) “a relationship of control between the defendant and the intervening criminal actor .... ” Romero, 749 F.2d at 81 (internal citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Workman, 320 F.3d at 263 (“From our
recognizing rule recognizing this as the general rule recognizing these two categories as the only district cases departing from that general rule of nonliability at common law for intervening criminal acts recognizing that the claim at issue was one under state common law between two private parties the experts in the federal system at resolving common law counterclaims  are the article iii courts recognizing general rule