warnings about the dangers of working with those materials; failed to provide El-sey with appropriate safety equipment, such as a breathing apparatus, to prevent the inhalation of carcinogens; and failed to take other appropriate safety precautions. These allegations are directed to an employer’s duty to use ordinary care in providing a safe workplace, not a duty arising from the special knowledge, education, and training of a licensed professional engineer. See Elwood, 197 S.W.3d at 794; see also Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell, 867 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex.1993) (“The standard of conduct required of the employer is ordinary care based on general negligence principles.”); Kroger Co. v. Milanes, 474 S.W.3d 321, 335 (Tex.A 2013 WL 6795390, at *5 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); with UOP, L.L.C. v. Kozak, No.
holding that elevator rider who asserted premisesliability claims against professional engineering firm that provided management services to premises owner was not required to provide certificate of merit because claims as alleged did not clearly arise out of the provision of professional engineering services holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights holding that homebuyers claims against professional engineering firm acting as thirdparty inspector did not did not implicate the practice of engineering