See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Cooper, 483 A.2d 317, 321 (D.C.1984) (citing Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 30 (4th ed.1971) (hereinafter “Handbook of the Law of Torts”)). The court’s threshold determination— namely, the existence of a duty — is “essentially a question of whether the policy of the law will extend the responsibility for the conduct to the consequences which have in fact occurred.” Id. at 321 (quoting Handbook of the Law of Torts, supra, § 42). Stated another way: “The statement that there is or is not a duty begs the essential question — whether the plaintiffs interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct.” Id. (quoting Handbook of the Law of Torts, supra, § 53). In this case, we are tasked with determinin 736, 739-40 (D.C.1993) (<HOLDING>). See also Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the
holding that negligence of a pedestrian in tripping over a concrete abatement on the premises of a grocery store was a question to be resolved by the jury holding a store vicariously liable for wrongful death when its employee shot and killed a customer holding that negligence of a store customer in failing to perceive a strip of black substance was a question for the jury holding that grocery store did not have duty to foresee and protect customer from rowdy children holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts