Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Spates
186 S.W.3d 566, 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 373, TX.0001661(2006)
-
- € 0,99
-
- € 0,99
Publisher Description
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, this Court unanimously held that the mere proximity of an employee to a spill, without evidence of when or how it came to be on the floor, was legally insufficient to charge a premises owner with constructive notice of the hazard. 81 S.W.3d 812, 816-17 (Tex. 2002). Five months later, the 149th District Court of Brazoria County granted summary judgment in a similar case involving the same retailer, in which the only evidence of constructive notice was the proximity of an employee to a hazard, again with no evidence of when or how it came to be on the floor. The appeal was transferred to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, which reversed. 144 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 2004). Although citing our opinion in Reece, the court chose to rely instead on one of the cases we specifically disapproved in that opinion. Id. at 660 (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Garcia, 30 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2000, no pet.), disapproved, Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 816 n.1. Accordingly, we reverse.