In Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (482 SE2d 339) (1997) the Supreme Court of Georgia "laid to rest the artificial notion that a crime against a person could never be foreseen by previous crimes against property. The Court adopted more flexible guidelines for determining foreseeability: In determining whether previous criminal acts are substantially similar to the occurrence causing harm, thereby establishing the foreseeability of risk, the court must inquire into the location, nature and extent of the prior criminal activities and their likeness, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question. While the prior criminal activity must be substantially similar to the particular crime in question, that does not mean identical. What is required is that the prior incident be sufficient to attract the defendant's attention to the dangerous condition which resulted in the litigated incident. Further, the question of reasonable foreseeability of a criminal attack is generally for a jury's determination. Sturbridge Partners, supra at 786. Under these guidelines, the Court in Sturbridge examined whether two prior burglaries of which the landlord had knowledge created a factual issue regarding the foreseeability of a rape and aggravated sodomy that occurred in one of its apartments. It concluded that the prior burglaries gave rise to a triable issue on foreseeability because, although the burglaries "were committed when the apartments were vacant, it was reasonable to anticipate that an unauthorized entry might occur while an apartment was occupied and personal harm to a tenant could result." Id. at 787.