With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleges that Whataburger’s failure to conduct an adequate background check ultimately caused the aggravated robbery that led to Dean’s murder. While Love’s convictions, if discovered, should have raised Whatabur-ger’s suspicions about his fitness to manage a restaurant, under Texas law, they did not make his eventual participation in an aggravated robbery leading to murder reasonably foreseeable. See Houser v. Smith, 968 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (“[w]hether [defendant] would have fired [the criminal actor] had he discovered ... forgery convictions is irrelevant ... the question presented is whether ... criminal conduct and the type of harm that befell [plaintiff] were -01605-CV, 2002 WL 1565664, at *1, *4 (Tex.App.-Dallas July 17, 2002, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>) with Read v. Scott Fetzer Co., 990 S.W.2d 732,

A: holding that a defendants prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance and felon in possession of a firearm helped support probable cause to search his motel room for evidence of burglary
B: holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct
C: holding that a defendant with prior felony convictions including possession of a dangerous weapon possession of a controlled substance receiving stolen property and attempted burglary was properly sentenced as a career offender
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
D.