Kroger Stores, Inc. v. Hernandez
1977 Tex. App. LEXIS 2725, 549 S.W. 2d 16 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The physical condition of a foreign substance on a floor, such as being dried or caked, can serve as sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to reasonably infer that the substance was present long enough to provide the premises owner with constructive notice of the hazard.
Facts:
- Plaintiff entered Defendant's store as a customer.
- While walking down an aisle, Plaintiff slipped and fell.
- After the fall, Plaintiff discovered a substance he identified as vomit on the floor, his shoes, and his clothing.
- Plaintiff described the substance as 'already dried where it looks like cake,' not wet or easily smeared.
- Plaintiff also observed that the substance had wheel tracks running through it.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendant in a trial court to recover for injuries from a slip-and-fall incident.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of the Plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- Defendant, as the appellant, appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict.
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 a plaintiff's testimony describing a foreign substance on the floor as 'already dried where it looks like cake' and having wheel tracks through it constitute legally and factually sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding that the substance had been on the floor long enough that the defendant should have discovered it?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Guittard
Yes. A plaintiff's description of the physical state of a foreign substance is sufficient evidence for a jury to infer it had been on the floor long enough to constitute constructive notice. The jury is not confined to a plaintiff’s rough estimate of time, but can use its general experience to infer duration from the physical description of the substance—in this case, that it was 'dried where it looks like cake.' The need for expert testimony on this matter is not essential. Furthermore, the defendant’s failure to produce contradictory evidence from its manager, who also saw the substance, raises a presumption that such evidence would have been adverse to the defendant. The court found this situation analogous to cases where a substance was 'dry around the edge,' which is a condition that could only occur after it was on the floor, and distinguishable from substances that might have been dry before being placed on the floor.
Analysis:
This decision strengthens the position of plaintiffs in premises liability cases by affirming that constructive notice can be established through purely circumstantial evidence regarding the condition of a hazard. It empowers juries to use their common sense and life experience to infer how long a substance has been on the floor, reducing the need for direct evidence or expert testimony. This precedent makes it more difficult for business owners to win on summary judgment simply because a plaintiff cannot pinpoint the exact time a spill occurred. It also underscores the tactical importance for defendants to rebut a plaintiff's description of a hazard, as failing to do so can create an adverse inference.
Unlock the full brief for Kroger Stores, Inc. v. Hernandez