867 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex.1993); El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Tex.1985). However, an exception to this rule exists when criminal conduct is the foreseeable result of a defendant’s negligence; if such conduct is foreseeable,’ a defendant bears the duty to prevent injury to others. Poole, 732 S.W.2d at 314. Criminal conduct supersedes a tortfeasor’s negligence “unless the actor at the time of negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a ... crime.” Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 550. See also Midkiff v. Hines, 866 S.W.2d 328, 332 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ) (<HOLDING>). The underlying theory of these cases and
holding that the crime of attempted felony murder no longer existed in florida holding case tried on stipulated facts where order indicated that the parties agreed during telephone hearing with the court that no material issue of fact existed holding that trial court erred in granting plea in bar as to murder when prior to receipt and publication of fact that jury could not reach a verdict on murder count jury had indicated in notes to the trial court that it had acquitted defendant of murder and holding that there was no verdict until it was received and published in open court holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation holding fact issue existed regarding foreseeability of murder at restaurant where police records indicated history of crime in the area