implicated by the facts of this case. 2. We decline to adopt Wyckotf’s extension of premises liability The existence of a legal duty is a threshold requirement for negligence liability — whether sounding in general negligence or premises defect liability. Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex.2006). “Texas law generally imposes no duty 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). One “special relationship” that gives rise to a duty to take action to prevent harm to others is the r r did not owe duty to keep premises safe and did not owe any duty with respect to hole on premises engineer neither created nor agreed to make safe); see also Martinez, 941 S.W.2d at 911 (<HOLDING>). In the absence of Supreme Court authority for
holding that the policy insured property but failure to occupy premises negated coverage holding that the decoration contractor freeman was not subject to premises liability because it did not occupy own control or make special use of the premises at the javits center 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 it is not holding that defendant properly established that it did not owe premises liability duty because it did not own occupy or control premises where injury occurred but that defendant was not entitled to traditional summary judgment because it failed to address duty arising out of alleged creation of dangerous condition