Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maria Chavez sued Fiesta Mart LLC after slipping on spilled yogurt in a grocery-store checkout lane. She alleged that Fiesta Mart breached its duty as the premises owner by failing to clean up the spill or warn her about it. Although Chavez initially pleaded negligence as an alternative theory, she conceded that her claim was properly evaluated solely as premises liability because her injury arose from a condition of the premises.
Overhead video showed no visible spill before two adults entered the lane with a small child in their cart. The yogurt became visible after the cart moved forward, and Chavez fell one minute and nine seconds later. A cashier working at an adjacent counter was helping customers, had not moved from her station to observe the lane, and apparently had a view at least partly obstructed by the counter. The spill was no more than three inches in diameter and was light-colored against a light-gray floor.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Fiesta Mart’s motion for summary judgment because Chavez failed to create a genuine dispute over whether Fiesta Mart had actual or constructive notice of the spill. Chavez offered no evidence that Fiesta Mart created or actually knew about the condition, so her claim depended on showing that the spill existed long enough to give the store a reasonable opportunity to discover it.
The court held that one minute and nine seconds was insufficient under the circumstances. Although an employee was nearby, the cashier was serving other customers, had limited visibility, and faced a small, inconspicuous spill. A finding that she should have discovered it during that brief interval would rest on speculation rather than evidence that notice was more likely than not. Because Chavez could not establish the notice element of premises liability, the court ruled that she would take nothing on her claim.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas premises-liability plaintiff must present evidence that the owner knew or reasonably should have known about the dangerous condition.
- Constructive notice depends heavily on how long the condition existed, considered alongside its conspicuousness, employee proximity, and the surrounding circumstances.
- A small, inconspicuous spill visible for only one minute and nine seconds did not give Fiesta Mart a reasonable opportunity to discover it, even though a busy cashier was nearby.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that employee proximity alone does not establish constructive notice under Texas law. Courts will assess whether the hazard was visible, how long it existed, whether the employee could reasonably observe it, and what the employee was doing at the time.
For slip-and-fall litigants, objective video evidence can be decisive when it establishes the hazard’s duration. Here, the short timeline and the spill’s inconspicuous appearance prevented the plaintiff from moving beyond speculation and reaching a jury.