transcripts to his response, including his own and Marshall’s. Farrar testified that on the day he slipped, the ramp was exposed to the elements and was wet from rain. He had not delivered mail to the building for several weeks prior to the day of his fall, but on that day, he noticed that the wheelchair ramp had been painted. Far-rar’s uncontroverted deposition testimony was that after he fell, he spoke with Marshall, who told him that the person who had come to check the fire alarm earlier that morning had also slipped on the wheelchair ramp. Sabine and Northwest argue that Farrar failed to present evidence of actual or constructive knowledge because he did not proffer evidence of a prior fall or a report involving injury. But whether an Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, “ ‘The fact that the owner or
holding that evidence of similar incidents is probative as to notice element in premises liability case holding that other incidents involving children handling firearms were not sufficiently similar to require discovery recognizing substantial probative value of tape recording that provided direct evidence of knowledge element of crime charged holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule holding that 8 incidents of assault theft robbery or burglary on the premises and 80 similar incidents within a 2bloek area within the prior 3 years did not constitute special circumstances giving rise to a duty to protect