must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and have “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Generally, when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, at Appellants have failed to state a claim of negligence under South Carolina law because they cannot establish a legal duty owed to them by Norfolk Southern. While Appellants may have properly pled that their injuries were foreseeable, foreseeability alone may not give rise to a duty under South Carolina law. See Booz-Allen, 346 S.E.2d at 325; Huggins, 585 S.E.2d at 277 (<HOLDING>); Evans v. Rite Aid Corp., 317 S.C. 154, 452
holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim holding that even though the governments conduct may have been negligent or even grossly negligent it did not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct holding that although an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose thus indicating that it is foreseeable that a particular automobile may cause injury in a forum state  foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause holding ejven though it is foreseeable that injury may arise by the negligent issuance of a credit card foreseeability alone does not give rise to duty