80 S.W.3d 549, 554 (Tex.2002). The Act does not waive immunity from suit and liability for intentional torts. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.057(2); Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Petto, 44 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Tex.2001); Meroney, 200 S.W.3d at 710. Appellants’ negligence allegations against the City, construed liberally in their favor, do not allege conduct falling within any of these areas. See Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 554 (discussing governmental entity’s duty in premises defect case not to injure by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct and to use ordinary care either to warn of condition presenting unreasonable risk of harm of which entity is actually aware and plaintiff is not or to make condition reasonably safe); City of Denton v. Page, 701 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the trial court has no jurisdiction
holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons holding that property owner has duty to keep real property in reasonably safe condition for invitees or to warn of any hazard holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning