With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.W.2d at 757 (“Statistics regarding large or undefined geographic areas do not by themselves make crime foreseeable at a specific location.”). None of the robberies occurred at a restaurant closer than five miles to the Whataburger at issue in this case. “For a landowner to foresee criminal conduct on property, there must be evidence that other crimes have occurred on the property or in its immediate vicinity.” Id. Courts generally rely on small geographic areas in considering crime in the “immediate vicinity.” See id. at 757, 759. (considering apartment complex, neighboring complexes, and one-mile radius around complex); see also Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654, 664 (Tex.1999) (considering parking garage and one-quarter mile radius around garage); Gibbs, 162 S.W.3d at 612 (<HOLDING>); Tex. Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Quach, 95

A: holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm
B: holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable
C: holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record
D: holding that evidence of bus robberies in other states did not make bus robbery in texas foreseeable
D.