You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

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:
(A)