the spill immediately or guarding the spill until it was cleaned up. But, the surveillance video shows that the sign was placed in a location where it could be seen by customers, such as Cynthia, warning of the hazard posed by the wet floor. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 814-17. Dr. Cohen did not cite any articles or treatises to support his theory that wet floor signs, like the one at issue in this case, were inadequate to warn of a hazard within approximately a four foot area around the sign. While Dr. Cohen stated that a wet floor sign could constitute an adequate warning “[i]f it’s properly placed and in conjunction with other better measures, such as floor matting[,]” that standard is not the one that applies to a premise owner under Texas law. See Williams, 940 S.W.2d at 584 (<HOLDING>). A reasonably prudent person, approaching the
holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning 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 business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances