An owner-operator's duty toward its invitee does not make the owner-operator an insurer of the invitee's safety. Id. To recover damages in a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must prove: (1) Actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises by the owner-operator; (2) That the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) That the owner-operator did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) That the owner-operator's failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries.Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983). The owner-operator is considered to have constructive knowledge of any premises defects or other dangerous conditions that a reasonably careful inspection would reveal. Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 295. Because an invitee's suit against a premises owner-operator is a simple negligence action, the standard of care required of the owner-occupier toward its invitees is the ordinary care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Id. at 295. The owner-operator's liability to an invitee depends, not on whether a specific set of facts or a specific breach of duty is established, but on whether the owner-operator acted reasonably in light of what it knew or should have known about the risks associated with the condition on the premises. Id.