With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". areas of the assailant’s impending criminal conduct inside the club. Finally, our resolution of this issue is dispositive and we need not address Appellants’ remaining issues regarding proximate causation. Whiteside v. Cherokee County School Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (appellate court need not address remaining issue when resolution of prior issue is dispositive). AFFIRMED. MOORE and WALLER, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., dissents in a separate opinion in which TOAL, C.J., concurs. Justice PLEICONES. I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, Swordfish had a duty to reasonably secure the common areas of the premises, and there are genuine issues of material fact concerning breach and causation. By emphasizing the fact that Appellant was injured 4 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1984) (<HOLDING>), and Munn v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 274

A: holding that a residential landlord has no duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
B: holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons
C: holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
D: holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm
C.