Reported / Citable
Background
Isolde Guerrero alleged that she tripped over a loose hose while entering a Kroger store on March 13, 2023. She claimed that Kroger and National Garden Services, LLC failed to warn customers about the hose or take reasonable precautions to prevent the accident.
Guerrero asserted premises-liability, negligence, respondeat-superior, and gross-negligence claims. Kroger moved for summary judgment, and Guerrero filed no response. The court nevertheless considered the merits based on the summary-judgment record.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Hanen granted summary judgment for Kroger and dismissed Guerrero’s claims against Kroger with prejudice. The court held that the asserted injury arose from a condition on the premises—the hose on the floor—rather than from a contemporaneous negligent activity. Under Texas law, the direct- and vicarious-negligence claims therefore sounded in premises liability and could not proceed as separate negligence claims.
The premises-liability claim failed because Guerrero offered no evidence that Kroger had actual or constructive notice of the hose. The record did not establish that the person handling or placing the hose was a Kroger employee, that Kroger knew or should have known about the hose, or how long it had been on the floor. Because the underlying premises claim failed, the gross-negligence claim also failed as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas slip-and-fall claim based on a hazardous condition generally sounds in premises liability, not ordinary negligence.
- To survive summary judgment, a premises-liability plaintiff must produce evidence of the owner’s actual or constructive notice of the condition.
- Without a viable ordinary-negligence or premises-liability claim, a gross-negligence claim cannot proceed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an unopposed summary-judgment motion is not granted automatically, but the nonmovant still must identify evidence creating a genuine dispute. In premises cases, speculation about who created a hazard or how long it existed does not substitute for evidence of notice.