In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d 706, 709, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 530 (Tex. 2003), the plaintiff alleged only ordinary negligence against Wal-Mart, which contrasts with Vallery's suit, which alleges only willful, wanton, or gross negligence on the part of the City. The plaintiff alleged Wal-Mart knew of the slippery condition of the stairs and he did not; therefore, Wal-Mart breached its duty to exercise ordinary care toward him. The jury answered questions concerning Wal-Mart's negligence, not gross negligence. The entire discussion by the court in reviewing the case was based on the allegation that Wal-Mart knew of a dangerous condition, failed to warn the plaintiff, that the plaintiff did not know about it, all of which invoked Wal-Mart's duty to use ordinary care. In that context, the Texas Supreme Court stated that, "If the licensee has the same knowledge about the dangerous condition as the licensor, then no duty to the licensee exists." Miller, 102 S.W.3d at 709.