Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 978 S.W.2d 612, 618 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied) (considering apartment complex and neighborhood surrounding complex). Finally, Barton’s contention that Whataburger’s earlier employment of a security guard on the weekends proves the foreseeability of the robbery is unavailing. “The mere act of taking preventative measures to protect against the possibility of future crime is not the same as foreseeing that criminal activity.” Allen, 158 S.W.3d at 67. If we equated preventative measures to foreseeability, we would “virtually eliminate the foreseeability requirement for a negligence claim against a person who installs a security system or takes other preventative measures to guard against crime.” Id.; accord Stewart, 214 S.W.3d at 665; Garcia, 203 S.W.3d at 437-38 (<HOLDING>). Applying the Timberwalk factors of proximity, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer (B) holding that a defendant may be convicted of felony murder when the death of his accomplice was a reasonably foreseeable result of their commission of a felony (C) holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable (D) holding that targeted murder committed on premises of sonic restaurant was not foreseeable result of sonics failure to employ security guard (E) holding that murder committed by minor gang members was not foreseeable result of sale of alcohol to gang members
Output (English): holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable