Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Sanders v. Aldi — court grants Aldi summary judgment on slip-and-fall claims

Reported / Citable

Case
Michelle Sanders v. Aldi (Texas), L.L.C.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Judge
Lee H. Rosenthal, Senior United States District Judge
Date Decided
October 26, 2026
Docket No.
4:25-cv-03601
Topics
Premises liability; Slip and fall; Summary judgment; Gross negligence

Background

Michelle Sanders alleged that she slipped and fell on a coffee spill at an Aldi store in Texas. She asserted negligence, premises-liability, and gross-negligence claims against Aldi (Texas), L.L.C.

Aldi moved for summary judgment, arguing that the record contained no competent evidence that it had actual or constructive notice of the spill, that an employee created the condition, or that the spill had existed long enough for Aldi to discover and remedy it. Sanders did not respond to the motion.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted summary judgment for Aldi on all claims. Sanders’s negligence claim failed because a slip-and-fall claim based on a preexisting condition is properly treated under Texas premises-liability law, not as a negligent-activity claim; Sanders offered no evidence of a contemporaneous activity by Aldi that caused her injury.

The premises-liability claim failed because Sanders produced no evidence creating a fact dispute over Aldi’s actual or constructive knowledge of the coffee spill. In particular, there was no evidence showing how long the spill had been on the floor before the fall. The gross-negligence claim also failed because Sanders could not establish an underlying negligence or premises-liability claim and offered no evidence of Aldi’s subjective awareness of an extreme risk or conscious indifference.

Key Takeaways

  • Texas slip-and-fall claims ordinarily sound in premises liability unless the injury resulted from a defendant’s contemporaneous activity.
  • A premises-liability plaintiff must present evidence that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
  • Absent evidence of how long a spill existed, constructive notice cannot be inferred merely from the occurrence of a fall.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that evidence of a hazardous condition alone does not establish retailer liability under Texas law. Plaintiffs must have competent summary-judgment evidence connecting the condition to the owner’s actual knowledge, creation of the condition, or a sufficient opportunity to discover it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top