in a particular case is not necessary where such a duty is well-settled. Thus, there is usually no need to redetermine what duty a business owner owes to its invitees because the law clearly recognizes that “[proprietors owe a duty to their business invitees to use reasonable care to protect them frotó injury caused by other patrons and guests on their premises, including providing adequate staff to policé and control disorderly conduct.” Id., (quoting Muex v. Hindel Bowling Lanes, Inc., 596 N.E.2d 263, 266 (Ind.Ct.App.1992)). This duty only extends to harm from the co plifting and physical confrontations with escaping shoplifters, plus frequent police runs to premises, shows reasonable foreseeability that a shopper might be injured by crime); and Delta Tau Delta, 712 N.E.2d at 974 (<HOLDING>). While .the number, nature, and location of
holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault holding that cumulative evidence of prior sexual assaults allegedly committed by defendant were prejudicial entitling defendant to new trial holding that allegations of sexual assault by an employee of the church fell within coverage for sexual misconduct holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that prior instance and information regarding sexual assaults at fraternity house demonstrated reasonable foreseeability of a sexual assault