H-E-B, L.P. v. Marissa Peterson

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that a premises-liability plaintiff responding to a no-evidence summary-judgment motion must present evidence that the dangerous condition existed long enough for the property owner to discover it. Evidence of earlier roof leaks elsewhere in the store, the puddle’s size, rainfall, a dripping rafter, and inspection protocols did not establish the puddle’s duration or constructive knowledge at the time and place of the injury. The court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for H-E-B.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff responding to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment must adduce some evidence that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient duration before the time and place of the injury for the premises owner to have discovered it. Because the record contained no evidence of how long the puddle existed before Peterson fell, Peterson failed to raise a fact issue on H-E-B's constructive knowledge.
2. Evidence of earlier roof leaks elsewhere in the store, without evidence connecting a leak to the vicinity of the puddle, does not raise a fact issue on H-E-B's constructive knowledge of the puddle at the time and place of Peterson's injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence of earlier roof leaks elsewhere in the store raised a fact issue that H-E-B had constructive knowledge of the puddle in the toy aisle.
2. Whether evidence concerning the rain, a drip from the rafter, the puddle's size, H-E-B's inspection protocol, and the absence of an aisle inspection established the duration of the puddle sufficiently to avoid no-evidence summary judgment.
3. Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's summary judgment for H-E-B.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded