the owner “knows that criminal assaults against persons are occurring, or are about to occur, on the premises which indicate an imminent probability of harm to an invitee.” Id. at 533, 362 S.E.2d at 922. The Court further held that, for the duty to be imposed, there must be “notice of a specific danger just prior to the assault.” Id.; see also Thompson, 261 Va. at 130,540 S.E.2d at 128 (stating that an “imminent probability” of harm is a heightened degree of foreseeability). In addition, the Virginia Supreme Court has stated that, “in the context of a business owner and invitee special relationship, we will not impose liability for negligence based solely upon a background of previous criminal activity on the owner’s property.” Taboada, 271 Va. at 327, 626 S.E.2d at 435; see also id. (<HOLDING>). v. Landlord-Tenant Relationship Virginia
holding that a landowner owed no duty of care to a contractors employee in the situation posed by the parties holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school recognizing duty of care owed by business invitor to invitee recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that the innkeeperguest special relationship simply is not applicable to the potential duty of care owed to a business invitee