have been reluctant to impose a duty to protect a member of the general public from the harmful acts of third parties, in the absence of special circumstances.” Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 911 A.2d 133, 139 (Pa.Super.Ct.2006). 7 . States that place an emphasis on the relationship between the parties generally hold that no duty exists in take-home exposure cases. See Van Fossen v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 777 N.W.2d 689, 697 (Iowa 2009) (collecting cases) (applying Iowa law); Campbell v. Ford Motor Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 33-34, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 (2012) (noting split between jurisdictions as those that focus on foreseeability of harm to p n from Fourteenth Dist. Court of Appeals of Texas (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), 479 Mich.498, 740 N.W.2d 206, 209 (2007) (<HOLDING>) (applying Michigan law). 8 . That asbestos can
holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable holding that in determining whether to impose a duty the following factors must be balanced 1 the relationship between the parties 2 the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured and 3 public policy concerns holding there must be some sort of demons trative harm and said harm must have been reasonably foreseeable by the defendant holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm holding tort of negligence must be based upon duty other that one imposed by contract