1. When a legal duty exists in a premises lability context to protect business invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm, is the question of foreseeability a factual issue that must be decided by the jury?

2. If foreseeability of harm is a factual issue, may a trial court sitting in diversity dispense with the Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping function of assessing the admissibility of expert evidence on summary judgment, when the proffered retail security/loss prevention expert determined that harm to a customer was reasonably foreseeable?

Whether foreseeability of harm is a factual issue for the jury in a premises liability case