Terrorism: The unexpected use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies.

Which made cock my head sideways like a questioning puppy after digesting the following.

The July 25, 2005 issue of BusinessWeek Online carried an article by Joseph Weber exposing little-known government guidelines that could result in companies facing lawsuits if they do not take appropriate action against foreseeable risks, including terrorism.

According to the article, the guidelines got their start 10 years ago when the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), first assembled a 46-page set of guidelines which the 9/11 Commission brought to light in 2004. The Congress has pressed the Department of Homeland Security to promote the recommendations as well. The good news is that the regulations are not burdensome. The bad news is that some courts have suggested that once-unthinkable threats-like terrorism-are now ''within the class of foreseeable hazards.''

How, legally, can a sane court rule that unexpected violence is an expected event?

Anybody out there ever watch Sesame Street (with or without your kids)?. One of the learning tools used on the program was "What Happens Next" where an event or a series of conditions were presented and the viewing audience was prompted to guess what would happen next. The answers were always obvious to even the most unsophisticated child.

Concerning the above judicial suggestion - What Happens Next?
What happens next is obvious... Food producers in the US are now responsible for any acts of violence against themselves. Acts by nutcases like the fanatical Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
And now your insurance company will have another "exception" allowing them to dodge liability.