applied to human conduct, and asks whether the injury might reasonably have been contemplated as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Doe, 907 S.W.2d at 478. Importantly, “[f]oreseeability requires more than someone, viewing the facts in retrospect, theorizing an extraordinary sequence of events whereby the defendant’s conduct brings about the injury.” Id. Under the Texas Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, we examine whether Barton raises facts that could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Whataburger should have anticipated the criminal danger created by its alleged negligence. See id. Negligent Hiring Barton first contends that Whatabur-ger’s negligence in hiring Love as a restaurant manager caused the aggravated robbery th 2d 494, 496 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). In her appellate brief, Barton calls our
holding that nurses fiftysix prior convictions for theft made his assault on elderly female visitor foreseeable holding that a recidivist provision in theft statute providing that theft of property not exceeding 500 in value by one who has before been twice convicted of theft constitutes theft in the second degree does not violate protection against double jeopardy prior convictions are predicates for enhanced punishment rather than elements of current theft charge and hence current charge is not reprosecution of prior offenses holding that all convictions under wisconsin sexual assault statute were not per se convictions for crimes of violence holding that mechanics three prior forgery convictions did not present foreseeable risk that he would commit sexual assault holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship