at 321. We explained that “the pertinent inquiry is not whether the actual harm was of a particular kind which was expectable” but, “[r]ather, the question is whether the actual harm fell within a general field of danger which should have been anticipated.” Id. ¶54 Other lower courts have correctly observed that while prior similar acts are among the best evidence available to demonstrate that a business owner is on notice of a risk of harm to invitees, they are not the only relevant evidence. See, e.g., Passovoy, 52 Wn. App. at 172-73 (recognizing a business may be on notice that a shoplifter confronted by store detectives could cause harm to invitees, though no such harm had occurred on the premises in the past); Griffin v. W. RS, Inc., 97 Wn. App. 557, 567-70, 984 P.2d 1070 (1999) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 143 Wn.2d 81, 18 P.3d
holding evidence insufficient to support conviction for possession 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 a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there holding business may be on notice of harm posed by intruder against invitee even when no intruder had been identified and there had been no prior acts on the premises 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