Michael Jackson’s corporations owed a duty of care to protect minors from Jackson’s sexual predation even though the corporations were wholly owned and controlled by Jackson.  A corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse.  Here, Jackson’s corporations had a special relationship with the vulnerable youths on whom Jackson preyed as the corporations arranged for the circumstances under which Jackson met and abused the youths.  To give rise to a duty of care it is unnecessary to show that the corporations had the right or ability to control the abuser’s conduct.  That Jackson might have fired any corporate officer or employee who acted to thwart his abuse did not excuse the failure to protect the children.