In Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523, 529 (Tex. 1997), the Court held that a broad-form negligence question that omitted instructions about the knowledge and risk-of-harm elements of a premises liability claim was insufficient. Id. Premises liability cases are similar to undertaking cases in that the plaintiff seeks to impose a duty on another to take protective action based upon special circumstances or the relationship between the parties. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Scope Note, Topic 7 (1965) (comparing duties of affirmative action described in Topic 7 with duties imposed upon possessors of land). In premises liability cases, like undertaking cases, a possessor of land may be held liable only if certain conditions are met. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 342, 343 (1965) (describing, respectively, conditions upon which land possessors may be held liable to licensees and invitees). In Olivo, the Court rendered judgment when a broad-form negligence question was submitted without appropriate instructions on the premises liability factors we identified in Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983). Olivo, 952 S.W.2d at 530.