of Clanton, 605 So.2d 835, 838-40 (Ala.1992), we held that an innkeeper had the duty to protect a guest, a battered wife who had informed the innkeeper that she was fleeing her husband, from unauthorized access to her room by her husband. In both Young and Thetford, the plaintiffs were completely dependent upon the defendants for protection. Unlike the sedated patient or the battered and fearful wife, Finley, the chief of police, was an armed, trained law enforcement officer with years of experience in dealing with domestic disputes and violent criminals. It cannot be maintained that Officer Finley was dependent on the elderly Ms. Patterson for protection. Accordingly, the “special relationship” exception did not impose a duty on Ms. Patterson to protect Finley from the criminal .1984) (<HOLDING>). However, Nail, supra, is that rare case in
recognizing that negligent conduct of police investigations does not give rise to a cause of action because the duty to protect citizens and enforce the law is one owed generally to the public 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 holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties 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 recognizing a 1982 amendment giving rise to this claim