Reported / Citable
Background
Norma Leticia Navejas alleged that she slipped on a puddle of soapy liquid at a Walmart store on May 1, 2024, and was injured. She sued Walmart for premises liability, general negligence, and gross negligence.
Walmart moved for summary judgment, arguing that Navejas lacked evidence that it knew or should have known of the spill. Navejas did not contend Walmart had actual knowledge. Instead, she relied on evidence that the liquid formed a roughly foot-wide puddle, an employee was nearby, and another customer allegedly said her foot had slipped on the puddle shortly before Navejas fell.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters recommended granting Walmart’s motion for summary judgment. The recommendation concluded that Navejas offered no evidence Walmart placed the liquid on the floor or actually knew it was there, and her circumstantial evidence did not establish how long the puddle had existed.
Even construing the evidence in Navejas’s favor, the recommendation found that it suggested only a brief duration. A clear liquid on a light floor, present for only minutes despite a nearby employee, did not give Walmart a reasonable opportunity to discover it under Texas premises-liability law. The recommendation also concluded that Texas law confined Navejas’s ordinary-negligence theories to premises liability because the alleged injury arose from a premises condition, and that the failed premises-liability claim likewise defeated gross negligence. It recommended denying the remaining motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A slip-and-fall plaintiff must present evidence of the duration of a spill to establish constructive notice.
- Evidence that another customer stepped in a puddle and that it had pooled does not, without more, reliably establish how long it was on the floor.
- When an injury stems from an unsafe premises condition, Texas law generally bars duplicative ordinary-negligence theories.
Why It Matters
The report underscores that proximity of an employee to a spill is not enough by itself to prove constructive notice. Plaintiffs need evidence permitting a non-speculative finding that the condition existed long enough for the premises owner reasonably to discover it.
Because this was a report and recommendation, the district judge could review timely objections before entering a final ruling.