crime rates and of robberies in other locales cannot create “an industry standard of foreseeability” sufficient to impose a duty to prevent crime. See Timberwalk, 97 W.3d 395, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (considering premises and area of 3.5 square miles around premises); Campbell, 4 S.W.3d at 338-39 (considering apartment complex, nearby hotel, two nearby apartment complexes, all located within one-square-mile); Plowman v. Glen Willows A ecency, frequency, similarity, and publicity, we conclude that Barton has failed to raise a fact issue that the aggravated robbery resulting in Dean’s murder at the Whataburger restaurant was foreseeable, so as to impose a duty on Whataburger to take reasonable measures to prevent it. See Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 757, 759 (<HOLDING>); Allen, 158 S.W.3d at 66-67 (same); Quach, 95
holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises holding that carjacking and murder were foreseeable in light of 184 reported criminal incidents on premises during previous three years holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm holding that criminal conduct of third party is not superseding cause that relieves negligent actor from liability when criminal conduct is foreseeable result of actors negligence