the court to decide from the facts surrounding the occurrence at issue. Van Horn v. Chambers, 970 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.1998); Siegler, 899 S.W.2d at 197; Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex.1990). “The nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whether negligence liability may be imposed.” Van Horn, 970 S.W.2d at 544. Generally, no duty exists to take action to prevent harm to others absent certain special relationships or circumstances. Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 837 (Tex.2000). Hartman moved for a traditional summary judgment solely on the existence of a duty. We thus do not consider whether Mohseni has adduced evidence of breach of duty, causation, or damages. See McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>); Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (“The motion for
holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that summary judgment motion itself must expressly present reasons entitling movant to summary judgment holding court will not read between the lines in determining what grounds are presented to the trial court in motion for summary judgment holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that a summary judgment motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion