Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez
41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 811, 968 S.W.2d 934, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 79 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability case, circumstantial evidence used to prove a proprietor had constructive notice of a dangerous condition must establish that it is more likely than not that the condition existed long enough to provide a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Facts:
- Flora Gonzalez was shopping with her family at a Wal-Mart store.
- The Wal-Mart contained a cafeteria that served cooked macaroni salad.
- While walking down a busy aisle, Gonzalez stepped on some cooked macaroni salad that had been spilled on the floor.
- The macaroni salad had come from the Wal-Mart cafeteria.
- Gonzalez slipped on the macaroni salad and fell, sustaining injuries to her back, shoulder, and knee.
- After the fall, Gonzalez observed that the macaroni salad was wet, humid, and contained 'a lot of dirt'.
- Gonzalez's daughter testified that the macaroni salad had footprints and cart track marks in it.
Procedural Posture:
- Flora Gonzalez sued Wal-Mart for negligence in a Texas trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Gonzalez, awarding her $100,000 in damages.
- The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict.
- Wal-Mart, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment but modified the damages award to $96,700, holding the evidence was legally sufficient.
- Wal-Mart, as petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is circumstantial evidence that a spilled substance has dirt and tracks in it, combined with a witness's subjective opinion that it 'seemed like it had been there a while,' legally sufficient to support a finding that the dangerous condition existed long enough to charge a property owner with constructive notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Gonzalez, Justice
No. When relying on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive notice, a plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that the dangerous condition existed long enough to give the proprietor a reasonable opportunity to discover it. The court reasoned that evidence such as dirt, footprints, or cart tracks in a spilled substance on a heavily-traveled aisle is speculative because it could have occurred mere seconds before the fall. Such evidence equally supports the inference of recent contamination as it does the inference that the spill had been there for a prolonged period. Furthermore, a witness's subjective opinion that a substance 'seemed like it had been there awhile,' without any personal knowledge of how long it was actually there, is mere conjecture and has no evidentiary value. Therefore, the evidence presented by Gonzalez only established a possibility, not a probability, that the hazard existed long enough to charge Wal-Mart with constructive notice.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the quantum of evidence required for a plaintiff to survive a legal sufficiency challenge in a Texas slip-and-fall case based on constructive notice. By rejecting evidence that is equally consistent with two opposite inferences (i.e., the spill was old vs. the spill was recent), the court heightened the plaintiff's burden of proof. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to get their cases to a jury without more concrete temporal evidence, such as testimony about store inspection schedules or the physical state of the spill clearly indicating the passage of time (e.g., drying, hardening). This holding reinforces that a business is not an insurer of its customers' safety and requires plaintiffs to move beyond speculation in establishing the timing element of constructive notice.
Unlock the full brief for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez