These general legal assertions, however, beg the question of whether AMC had a duty to provide security outside of the theater where the assault occurred. See Wilson v. Texas Parks Wildlife Dep't, 8 S.W.3d 634, 635 (Tex. 1999) ("As a rule, to prevail on a premises liability claim a plaintiff must prove that the defendant possessed — that is, owned, occupied, or controlled — the premises where injury occurred."); see also Wallace v. Wymer, No. 01-04-00735-CV; 2005 WL 3214689, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming summary judgment where movant demonstrated that it had never owned, occupied, or controlled location in front of facility where assault occurred); Alarcon v. Bed, Bath Beyond, Inc., No. 04-03-00551-CV, 2004 WL 1453465, at *1-2 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming summary judgment where movant established that shopping center landlord, and not movant, was responsible for security in common area in front of movant's store); Johnson v. Tom Thumb Stores, Inc., 771 S.W.2d 582, 584-85 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied) (affirming directed verdict when premises liability plaintiff failed to present evidence of tenant's duty in light of fact that lease put burden on landlord to maintain common area). Except for the affidavit by AMC's general manager, who denied that AMC had such a duty, the record is silent in regard to responsibility for security outside the theater.