before, nor had it ever been the scene of any workplace violence, nor had anyone ever committed any sort of crime against a Whataburger employee, nor had anyone ever been murdered. Comparing this evidence with other, similar cases in Texas, we agree with the trial court that the evidence does not show the rampant, violent criminal activity sufficient to raise a fact issue about the foreseeability of the aggravated robbery that resulted in Dean’s murder. See Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 758 (“On the other hand, the complete absence of previous crimes, or the occurrence of a few crimes over an extended time period, negates the foreseeability element.”); Allen, 158 S.W.3d at 67; compare Jai Jalaram Lodging Group, L.L.C. v. Leribeus, 225 S.W.3d 238, 245-46 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>), Gibbs, 162 S.W.3d at 612 (holding that
holding that the trial court should have considered in mitigation the fact that burgess was the only one of six participants in the crime two of whom admitted that they participated in the crime who was charged with and prosecuted for the murder holding that to be guilty of aiding and abetting under  924c the defendant must have directly facilitated or encouraged use of the firearm mere presence at the scene of the crime and knowledge that the crime is being committed is not enough holding that no duty existed when incident reports within two years before while showing a rise in criminal activity did not show any notable frequency nor were they of the kind that would have facilitated the violent personal crime in question holding relevance of evidence is established by any showing however slight that the evidence makes it more or less likely that the defendant committed the crime in question holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder