Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

TortsPremises liabilitySlip and fallInvitee dutyMethod of operationpremises liabilityinviteeordinary care

Facts

Corbin slipped on a grape or grapes directly in front of a self-service grape bin in a Safeway produce aisle and fell on a green linoleum tile floor. After falling, he observed several ruptured and discolored grapes around him and no mat or other floor covering in the area. Safeway employees testified that company policy required large non-skid mats in front of grape displays because Safeway knew customers frequently dropped or knocked grapes loose, creating a great risk of slips on the linoleum floor. The employees also testified that the grape bin was an unusually hazardous and continual source of slippery material and that employees could not adequately supervise the floor to keep it free of grapes.

Issue

May an invitee injured in a store slip-and-fall recover by showing that the storeowner failed to use reasonable care to protect customers from a known and unusually high risk created by a self-service display, even without evidence that the storeowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific grape on the floor? More specifically, was there evidence requiring submission of Safeway's liability to the jury rather than a directed verdict?

Rule

An invitee's suit against a storeowner is a simple negligence action governed by ordinary care under the circumstances. To recover, the invitee must prove that the storeowner had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises, that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, that the storeowner failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, and that the failure proximately caused the injury. When the alleged dangerous condition is the store's method of operation or display and the owner knows or should know that it creates a foreseeable and unusually high risk, the plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive knowledge of the specific object on the floor to obtain jury submission.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a supermarket in Austin, Elena Ruiz slipped on a loose cherry beside an open self-service cherry rack set over smooth tile. Store supervisors testified they knew cherries regularly rolled off the rack, that employees could not keep the area continuously clear, and that rubber mats were normally used there, but witnesses saw no mat that afternoon.

If the store moves for a directed verdict because Elena cannot show how long the cherry was on the floor, how should the court rule?

Explanation. An invitee must show the occupier had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises, that the condition posed an unreasonable risk, failure to use reasonable care, and proximate cause. Under the majority opinion, when the dangerous condition is the store's chosen method of operation or display and the store knows it creates a foreseeable, unusually high risk, the plaintiff need not prove notice of the specific item on the floor to reach the jury. The lack of a mat and the store's knowledge of the recurring risk are probative evidence barring a directed verdict.