Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On April 5, 2023, Nelda Washington visited a Walmart store in DeSoto, Texas, to purchase bottled water. The water was displayed on a pallet with shrink wrap placed on the floor beneath shelving. After successfully retrieving one case by bending over, Washington chose to step onto the pallet to reach a second case rather than bend again. As she stepped back, her right foot caught the plastic wrap, causing her to lose her balance and fall.
Washington filed suit in Dallas County District Court in December 2024, asserting a premises liability claim. Walmart removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Washington alleged that Walmart negligently maintained the shrink-wrapped pallet display, creating an unreasonably dangerous condition that caused her injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Washington failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the shrink-wrapped pallet constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition. Under Texas law, landowners are not insurers of visitor safety, and common or innocuous hazards are not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. The court found that shrink-wrapped pallet displays of bottled water are a routine, standard display method in retail stores. Critically, Washington offered no evidence of prior accidents, injuries, complaints, or reports involving similar displays—which Texas law identifies as essential evidence to establish that a condition is unreasonably dangerous.
The court further noted that Washington herself testified she had encountered similar shrink-wrapped pallets displaying bottled water “a lot” throughout the Dallas area and acknowledged this is “common practice.” The court emphasized that a condition presenting only a “mere possibility of harm” is legally insufficient; premises liability requires evidence of a “sufficient probability” that a harmful event would occur. The shrink-wrapped pallet constituted merely an “everyday hazard” that consumers routinely encounter and avoid through ordinary care and caution.
In the alternative, even assuming the pallet was unreasonably dangerous, the court held that Washington failed to establish that Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. Texas law requires temporal evidence showing how long a dangerous condition existed to allow the property owner a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it. Washington provided no evidence regarding how long the shrink wrap was loose or that Walmart employees knew of the condition’s duration.
Key Takeaways
- Premises liability requires evidence that a condition is unreasonably dangerous—not merely that an injury occurred. Common retail display practices used industry-wide are not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
- Under Texas law, plaintiffs must present evidence of prior accidents, injuries, complaints, or reports involving the same condition, or other surrounding circumstances that make the condition materially more likely to cause injury. A mere possibility of harm is legally insufficient.
- For constructive knowledge claims, plaintiffs must provide temporal evidence establishing how long a hazard existed, allowing the property owner a reasonable opportunity to discover it upon inspection. Speculation or assumption about duration is insufficient.
- Even when an invitee is aware of a condition, the landowner may owe no duty to warn. Additionally, when a customer chooses to step onto a pallet rather than use an available alternative method (bending down, requesting assistance), the “necessary use” exception to premises liability does not apply.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that Texas premises liability law does not make property owners insurers against all injuries. Retail stores routinely display merchandise in ways that involve some minimal risk—shrink-wrapped pallets on floors are ubiquitous in the industry. The court’s ruling protects retailers from liability based on routine, industry-standard display practices absent specific evidence that the condition is materially more likely to cause injury than similar conditions elsewhere.
For plaintiffs’ counsel, the decision underscores the critical importance of developing evidence of prior incidents, complaints, or other objective factors demonstrating that a condition is unreasonably dangerous. Temporal evidence regarding how long a hazard existed is similarly essential to establish constructive knowledge. Without such concrete evidence, even injuries resulting from ordinary retail displays cannot support premises liability claims, regardless of the fact that an injury occurred.