With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". apply only to random crime, not to a targeted crime accomplished by, or with the assistance of, an insider. See Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 757-59. Barton is correct that the Timberwalk factors are more applicable to random crime than targeted crime, but the preventative measures that Barton contends Whataburger should have implemented to prevent a robbery by a random criminal or an insider are the same, save for Whataburger’s decision to hire Love in the first instance. In this sense, the Tim-berwalk factors assist in determining whether fact issue exists as to the foreseeability of the robbery based on the evidence that Barton advances regarding the general foreseeability of criminal activity at the restaurant. See .3d 333, 335-36, 346 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Barton’s expert also averred that an

A: holding that evidence of similar incidents is probative as to notice element in premises liability case
B: 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
C: holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises
D: holding that carjacking and murder were foreseeable in light of 184 reported criminal incidents on premises during previous three years
D.