there, provided a further nesting place for mosquitoes. Failing ‘to repair Nami’s equipment or mow the grass and weeds were negligent acts by Union Pacific that created conditions that allowed mosquitoes to swarm and bite Nami. Thus, under the facts of this case, we cannot conclude that the doctrine of ferae naturae precludes Nami’s recovery. Because there was evidence that Union Pacific negligently created the conditions that attracted the mosquitoes, Union Pacific retained a duty to warn. See Nicholson, 986 S.W.2d at 62; see also Mintzer, 417 S.W.3d at 695. The trial court did not err in denying Union Pacific’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on this basis. C. Common Law Duty to Warn of Commonly-Known or Common Sense Hazards Union Pacific .W.3d 566, 569 (Tex. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Aleman v. Ben E. Keith Co., 227 S.W.3d 304,
holding that a fastfood employer had no duty to warn an employee that it was obviously dangerous to use a ladder to climb over a lift gate holding that a grocery store employer had no duty to warn an employee that placing his hand in the doorjamb of a customers car is an obvious danger holding that engineering firm whose work was dictated by and complied with contractual specifications had no duty to warn of dangerous condition on premises holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment