With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". robbery as theft coupled with bodily injury or threat of imminent bodily injury or death). The record contains no evidence that the events underlying either of Love’s convictions involved violence or theft, or that Love engaged in any conduct during the seven months he was employed at Whataburger that would have made his participation in an aggravated robbery foreseeable. Even viewed in hindsight, Love’s convictions for selling cocaine and nonpayment of child support do not indicate a propensity for violent criminal conduct, like aggravated robbery and murder. Thus, we hold that Love’s own criminal behavior, and that of his cohorts, is a superseding cause that precludes Whata-burger’s liability for these crimes. Compare Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788, 796-97 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>), Doe, 907 S.W.2d at 478 (holding that

A: holding written reprimand stating that officer failed to exercise due care and failed to comply with transportation code did not raise fact issue on reckless disregard
B: holding that employees failure to comply with requirement in peace officer manual and his reprimand for using profanity to member of public did not make his assault of customer foreseeable
C: holding that vulnerability of a peace officer factored into greater liability for fleeing a peace officer resulting in death
D: holding that employees convictions for burglary possession of controlled substance public intoxication possession of marijuana unlawful carrying of weapon and evading arrest did not make his sexual assault of child foreseeable
B.