America personnel informed her that security officers would intervene if “someone threw a punch or someone was hit to the point where someone is going to be violated.” Nickelson’s deposition testimony demonstrates that some of her decisions regarding the suspected shoplifter were based on mall security’s representations that they would intervene on her behalf. Because Mall of America voluntarily hired a security force, because those officers were directed to intervene in physical altercations and because Nickelson relied on the representation that such assistance would be forthcoming from security personnel, Mall of America voluntarily assumed a duty in this case to intervene in the altercation to protect Nickelson. See Isler v. Burman, 305 Minn. 288, 295, 232 N.W.2d 818, 821-22 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Harris, 518 N.W.2d 864, 868
holding the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner when the evidence showed no one had been injured by the condition in question and the premises owner had received no complaints about the condition in question during a tenyear period holding evidence insufficient to support conviction when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police holding that court properly instructed jury on voluntary assumption of duty when evidence showed that party who inspected premises had assured others of premises safety holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe