been previously convicted of aggravated robbery, his conduct in this case was reasonably foreseeable. EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice, concurring in dissent from the denial of en banc consideration. I agree with Justice Jennings that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Whataburger on the issue of foreseeability and that the panel erroneously conflates the duties owed by premises owners with the duties of employers to their employees. Therefore, I join Justice Jennings’ opinion dissenting from denial of en banc review. In particular, I agree that the character of the business for which an employee is hired makes a difference with respect to the foreseeability of a crime. See Kendrick v. Allright Parking, 846 S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); see also Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgt. Co.,
holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts holding that a  1983 claim generally accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action  holding a business owner must protect invitees against injury caused by third persons holding that when business is prone to attract crime because of the particular character of the business or its previous experience operator has duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know from observation or past experience that criminal acts are likely to occur either generally or at some particular time