should have known that an assault was imminent. Even if the carrier had the requisite knowledge, its duty to take protective action does not arise unless that duty arose well enough in advance of the assault to have prevented it with the force in its command. Although whether one party owes a duty of care to another is ordinarily a legal question for the court to decide, the existence of MTA’s duty in this case is predicated on its asserted similarity (or not) to the factual conditions prerequisite described in Tall. Because the jury is the appropriate body to find the facts, we need only decide if there is a dispute of material facts as to whether these conditions existed in the present case. Cf. Walpert, Smullian & Blumenthal, P.A. v. Katz, 361 Md. 645, 693, 762 A.2d 582, 608 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Todd presented such a factual dispute
holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact recognizing that the existence of a legal duty may depend on a preliminary factual determination namely whether contractual privity existed which should be decided by the trier of fact holding that the state must establish that a legal situs of the offense was in delaware and that the reviewing court is required to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt holding that while a district court determination about whether an act is reasonable usually is considered to be a legal conclusion that djetermining the weight to be accorded to each factor in reaching the ultimate finding as to the existence of conditions is the special province of the trier of fact  holding that it may be decided as a matter of law