Reported / Citable
Background
Amanda Ubias alleged that she slipped and fell on a banana peel while shopping at a Ross Stores location in Webster, Texas. She claimed Ross breached its duty to her as a business invitee by failing to keep the store’s pathways clean and safe and to eliminate a hazard it allegedly knew or should have known about.
Ross moved for summary judgment. Ubias did not respond. The record included Ubias’s acknowledgment that she did not know how long the banana peel had been on the floor before her fall.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal granted Ross’s summary-judgment motion because Ubias produced no evidence creating a genuine dispute over whether Ross had actual or constructive knowledge of the banana peel before the accident.
Under Texas premises-liability law, a plaintiff must establish, among other elements, that the owner or operator had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge requires evidence that the condition existed long enough for the premises owner to discover it. Because the record did not show how long the banana peel had been on the floor, Ubias could not prove that essential notice element. The court also denied Ross’s motion in limine as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas slip-and-fall plaintiff must offer evidence that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazardous condition.
- Evidence of the condition’s duration is necessary to establish constructive notice when actual notice is absent.
- A plaintiff’s inability to say how long a foreign substance was present can support summary judgment for the premises owner.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Texas’s duration-of-condition requirement at summary judgment. Allegations that a store failed to maintain safe floors do not substitute for evidence that the store knew, or had enough time to discover, the particular hazard that caused the fall.