H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez

Texas Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi · 1999 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilitypremises liabilityslip and fallconstructive knowledgeunreasonable riskreasonable careproximate cause

Facts

Maria Resendez fell in HEB’s produce section near the potatoes after slipping on grapes on the floor. The store displayed some grapes loose in bowls as well as bagged grapes, and testimony showed customers sometimes ate or removed grapes and dropped them. HEB employees were trained to clean hazards immediately, the store used mats, warning cones, and frequent sweeping, and testimony indicated the floor had been swept shortly before the fall. Maria and other witnesses testified that grapes were in the area, and relatives testified that after the fall her pain and physical limitations were significantly worse than before.

Issue

Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that HEB’s negligence proximately caused Maria Resendez’s injuries in a premises-liability case, and whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of her prior knee surgeries and in allowing the damages award to stand as modified.

Rule

In a premises-liability action, the plaintiff must prove: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises by the owner or operator; (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) that the owner or operator did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) that the failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. On review of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court considers only evidence and inferences supporting the jury’s finding and disregards contrary evidence; factual-sufficiency review requires weighing all the evidence and reversing only if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.

🔒

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 market in El Paso, Lila Moreno slipped in a customer aisle beside a fruit stand and fell. The store sold some cherries in sealed bags but also displayed loose cherries in open bowls; employees testified customers often sampled from the bowls and sometimes dropped cherries, and the produce lead admitted fallen cherries could cause someone to slip.

If Lila sues the market for premises liability, which is the strongest basis for finding the store had the required knowledge of the dangerous condition?

Explanation. The majority held that knowledge may be supported by the combination of the display method, customer behavior, and the store’s awareness that dropped produce creates a slipping hazard. It did not require proof that an employee saw the exact item on the floor immediately before the fall, and lack of prior identical accidents is not dispositive. The issue is whether the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.