How To Prove A Texas Premises Liability (Slip and Fall) Claim

 

 

In Texas, a claim of Premises Liability (Slip and Fall) is defined as:

Premises liability occurs when a property owner fails to keep his or her property safe for lawful visitors, resulting in injury to a visitor. (Might also be referred to as Slip and Fall).

It simply means:

An injury claim arising from an injury on someone’s property.

There are 4 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. There was actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises by the owner or operator. For a slip and fall claim, it must be shown that the property owner or manager either knew about a dangerous condition on their property or should have known about it, meaning they had a reasonable opportunity to fix it before someone got hurt.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The owner received multiple complaints from patrons about a wet floor in the entrance area prior to the incident.
  * Surveillance footage shows that the owner’s employees walked past the spill several times without addressing it.
  * Maintenance logs indicate that the area was not inspected for hazards on the day of the incident.
  * The owner had previously been cited for similar slip and fall incidents in the same location.
  * Witnesses reported that the condition had existed for over an hour before the accident occurred.

• Element 2. The condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm. In a slip and fall case, “the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm” means that the dangerous situation on the property was so obvious or severe that it should have been fixed or warned about, making it unsafe for visitors.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The floor was wet and lacked any warning signs, creating a hidden hazard for patrons.
  * The store had received multiple complaints about the slippery floor prior to the incident, indicating awareness of the danger.
  * The lighting in the area was dim, making it difficult for customers to see the hazardous condition.
  * The store failed to conduct regular safety inspections, which could have identified and addressed the risk.
  * The substance on the floor was a known slippery material that had previously caused accidents in the same location.

• Element 3. The owner or operator did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk. This means that the property owner or manager failed to take appropriate steps to keep the area safe, like fixing hazards or warning visitors about dangers, which contributed to someone getting hurt in a slip and fall accident.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The owner failed to repair a known leak in the ceiling, which caused water to accumulate on the floor for several days.
  * The operator neglected to place warning signs around a freshly mopped area, despite being aware of the potential slip hazard.
  * The property owner did not conduct regular inspections of the premises, allowing hazardous conditions to persist without remediation.
  * The operator ignored multiple complaints from customers about a slippery floor, demonstrating a lack of attention to safety concerns.
  * The owner allowed debris to accumulate in high-traffic areas, creating an unsafe environment for patrons.

• Element 4. The owner or operator’s failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. This means that the property owner or manager didn’t take proper care of their space, and because of that negligence, the person who got hurt ended up suffering injuries directly related to that lack of care.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The property owner was aware of the wet floor but failed to place warning signs to alert patrons.
  * The operator neglected to clean up a spill for over an hour, despite multiple complaints from customers.
  * The lighting in the area where the fall occurred was inadequate, making it difficult for the plaintiff to see the hazard.
  * The owner had received prior reports of similar incidents in the same location but did not take corrective action.
  * The maintenance staff was not properly trained to handle hazardous conditions, leading to unsafe premises.

^{(See Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 SW 2d 292 – Tex: Supreme Court 1983.)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Premises Liability (Slip and Fall), having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to navigate your case effectively.

Prove Your TX Premises Liability (Slip and Fall) Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only