Jacqueline Cruzco v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas grants in part and denies in part Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC’s motion for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case. The court dismisses Jacqueline Cruzco’s negligent activity, failure to maintain, and gross negligence claims, but finds genuine issues of material fact concerning her premises liability claim, including whether the substance posed an unreasonable risk of harm and whether Wal-Mart had constructive knowledge of it. The order was entered on January 12, 2026.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff could not pursue an active negligent-activity claim because her injury resulted from a condition of the premises rather than from contemporaneous conduct by a Wal-Mart employee.
2. The evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the white substance on the floor posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
3. Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning Wal-Mart's constructive knowledge of the substance, precluding summary judgment on the premises liability claim.
4. The failure to maintain or inspect claim was subsumed by Plaintiff's premises liability claim and was dismissed; alternatively, Plaintiff offered no evidence of independent negligence by Wal-Mart or its employees.
5. Plaintiff failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on gross negligence, including evidence that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of an extreme risk and acted with conscious indifference.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's negligence claim was legally distinct from and viable alongside her premises liability claim.
2. Whether the evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the substance on the floor posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
3. Whether the evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning Wal-Mart's constructive knowledge of the substance.
4. Whether Plaintiff's failure to maintain or inspect theory was subsumed by her premises liability claim.
5. Whether Plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to support a gross negligence claim.

Disposition

other