In this nеgligence action, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant 1 pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) and denying plain *397 tiff the opportunity to amend her complaint. We reverse.
Plaintiff attended the PlanetFest concert, at which several bands were scheduled to appear, at the Pine Knob Music Theater. The Pine Knob Music Theater is an outdoor amphitheater, offering reserved seating in a pavilion and open seating on a grass-covered hill. Plaintiff received tickets to the concert as part of a promotional giveaway by a local radio station sponsoring the concert. Plаintiff arrived at the Pine Knob Music Theater with a friend and found a spot to sit on the hill. Sometime later, while one of the bands was performing, a few individuals on the hill began to pull up sod and throw the sod at others. In previous years, there had been two sod-throwing incidents at the theater. Before the show, the event coordinator had asked that the bands stop performing and announce that the sod throwing must stop if audience members began throwing sod. Pursuant to the event coordinator’s request, the band stopped performing, made the announcement, and refused to cоntinue its performance until the sod throwing stopped. The crowd complied and several individuals involved in the incident were ejected from the theater. Approximately forty-five minutes lаter, while a different band was performing, the sod throwing began again. When the band refused to make an announcement or to stop performing until the sod throwing stopped, the event coоrdinator made an announcement demanding that the sod throwing stop. When the sod throwing continued, the band made an additional announcement. Numerous individuals involved in the incident were ejeсted from the theater. However, plaintiff fractured *398 her ankle when she fell in an attempt to avoid a large piece of sod thrown in her direction.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant was negligent in failing to provide proper security, failing to stop the performance when it should have known that continuing the performance would incite the crowd, failing tо screen the crowd to eliminate intoxicated individuals, and by selling alcoholic beverages. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that it did not have a duty to protect plaintiff from the criminal acts of third parties. The trial court granted defendant’s motion on that basis.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuаnt to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We agree. We review de novo the grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition.
Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No 58 v McNulty,
A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim.
*399
Amorello v Monsanto Corp,
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the defendant’s breach of its duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages.
Richardson v Michigan Humane Society,
Generally, there is no duty to protect against the acts of a third person.
Marcelletti, supra
at 664. However, an exception to this general rule exists where there is a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, or between the defendant and the third persоn.
Id.
One of the special relationships that will impose a duty to protect against the acts of third parties is the relationship between an occupier of land and its invitees.
Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc,
Ordinarily, whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide.
Id.
at 397. However, where thе determination of duty depends on factual findings, those findings must be made by the jury.
Holland v Liedel,
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in determining as a matter оf law that defendant used reasonable care to protect her from injury. The reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct is generally a question for the jury.
Riddle v McLouth Steel Products
*401
Corp,
Furthermore, taking as true the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, we cannot conclude that plaintiff’s negligence claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right to recovery.
Wade, supra
at 163. Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of a negligence claim. See
Jackson v White Castle System, Inc,
Next, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion to amend her complaint. We agree. A trial court’s decision regarding a motion to amend а pleading is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion.
Weymers v Khera,
Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(5). If a court grants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), (9), or (10), the court must give the рarties an opportunity to amend their pleadings pursuant to MCR 2.118, “unless the evidence then before the court shows that amendment would not be justified” or would be futile. MCR 2.116(I)(5);
Weymers, supra
at 658. Ignoring the substantive merits of a claim, an amendment is futile if it is legally insufficient on its face.
McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co,
Reversed.
Notes
Because defendant Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., was dismissed with prejudice before the trial court’s order granting summary disposition, we will refer to defendant PKT, Inc., also known as Pine Knob Music Theater and Arena Associates, as “defendant” throughout this opinion.