only the general danger to be foreseeable, not the precise sequence of events that produced the harm. Morin, 114 S.W.3d at 737 (citing Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778, 785 (Tex.2001)). I turn to the gravamen of the parties’ dispute: whether Blanche’s death under the facts of this case was foreseeable. (3) Proximate-Cause Foreseeability SWBT contends that the premises were safe, arguing that the driver’s criminal conduct was the sole proximate cause of Blanche’s death and, as a result, that the absence of bumper guards was not the legal cause. However, constructive knowledge of similar incidents may satisfy the foreseeability element of causation, even when the incident resulted from the criminal conduct of a third party. See Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d at 551 (<HOLDING>). According to Howard Castille, a SWBT
holding that specific knowledge of previous rapes in area was not necessary for rape to be foreseeable when defendant had knowledge of high crime rate of area generally holding that the fact that an investigatory stop took place in a high crime area is pertinent to a terry analysis holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged holding that the defendants presence in a dark alleyway at six oclock in the morning behind a closed business in an exclusively commercial area supported the investigative stop and explaining that knowledge of recent burglaries in an area is a relevant circumstance to be considered in determining the reasonableness of an officers suspicion because knowledge of the character of the area is part of an officers expertise holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law