Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the third party, Marquette. 2. “Special Circumstances” Exception The second exception to the general rule that a person has no duty to. protect another from the criminal acts of a third party is the “special circumstances” exception. It arises only in the rare case when the person “know[s] or [has] reason to know that acts are occurring or [are] about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee.” Nail v. Jefferson County Truck Growers Ass’n, Inc., 542 So.2d 1208, 1211 (Ala.1988) (quoting Cornpropst v. Sloan, 528 S.W.2d 188, 197-98 (Tenn.1975)). In the overwhelming majority of cases presenting the question, we have not found special circumstances that give rise to a duty to protect. See, e.g., Ortell v. Spencer Companies, 477 So.2d 299 (Ala.1985) (<HOLDING>); Henley v. Pizitz Realty Co., 456 So.2d 272 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 8 incidents of assault theft robbery or burglary on the premises and 80 similar incidents within a 2bloek area within the prior 3 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect (B) holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule (C) holding that 1 battery 6 breakings and enterings of cars 2 robberies and 7 thefts in a parking deck within the prior 10 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect (D) holding that walmart was not under a duty to protect a patron from a criminal assault absent prior similar incidents at their facility or in the general area (E) holding that evidence of similar incidents is probative as to notice element in premises liability case
Output (English): holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule