Lexplug logoLexplug

H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez

Supreme Court of Texas
988 S.W.2d 218 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The mere display of produce for customer sampling does not, by itself, constitute a condition that poses an unreasonable risk of harm. To establish premises liability, a plaintiff must present evidence that the specific manner of the display created the unreasonable risk.


Facts:

  • H.E. Butt Grocery Company (HEB) maintained two grape displays in its produce section.
  • One display contained a bowl of loose grapes for customer sampling.
  • The sampling bowl was level, sitting on ice, and recessed about five inches below the table's surface.
  • Each display table had a three-inch railing around its edges.
  • The floor of the produce section was a non-skid surface, with floor mats and warning cones placed around the display tables.
  • While shopping, Maria Resendez slipped and fell near the grape displays.

Procedural Posture:

  • Maria Resendez sued H.E. Butt Grocery Company for negligence in a Texas trial court.
  • A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Resendez, and the trial court entered a judgment on that verdict.
  • HEB, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas court of appeals.
  • The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Resendez, the appellee.
  • HEB, as petitioner, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the mere existence of a customer food sampling display, without additional evidence that the manner of display was unsafe, create a condition on the premises that poses an unreasonable risk of harm?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. As a matter of law, the mere fact that a store has a customer sampling display cannot, without more, be evidence of a condition on the premises that poses an unreasonable risk of harm. To recover in a premises liability action, a plaintiff must prove four elements, including that the condition posed an unreasonable risk. Resendez failed to meet this burden because she presented no evidence that the display itself created an unreasonable risk. The court distinguished this case from Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., where the specific manner of display—a slanted bin over a linoleum floor with no mat—was found to create an unreasonable risk. Here, HEB took numerous safety precautions, including using a recessed bowl, railings, non-skid flooring, and mats, and there was no evidence that the manner of the display was unsafe.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'unreasonable risk' element in Texas premises liability law, particularly concerning self-service areas in retail stores. It establishes that the potential for a hazard (like a customer dropping a grape) is not sufficient to create liability; the plaintiff must prove the business's own conduct in setting up the display was negligent. This holding protects businesses that take reasonable safety precautions from being held strictly liable for hazards created by customer behavior, thus raising the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases involving sampling stations.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez