Texas Supreme Court Reinforces “Time-Notice” Rule in Slip-and-Fall Cases

H-E-B, LP v. Marissa Peterson,  No. 24-0310  |  Tex. Sup. Ct. April 10, 2026

In a significant victory for premises owners, occupiers, and their insurers, the Supreme Court of Texas has reaffirmed — and strictly enforced — the evidentiary burden plaintiffs must clear to establish constructive notice in slip-and-fall cases. This decision strengthens the defense toolkit in a category of claims that generate substantial litigation volume across retail, commercial, and hospitality sectors in Texas.

Background

Marissa Peterson slipped on a clear liquid puddle in the toy aisle of an H-E-B grocery store and sued for premises liability. She conceded H-E-B had no actual knowledge of the puddle, relying instead on a constructive notice theory. In support, she marshaled the following evidence:

• Prior roof leaks elsewhere in the store (stemming from an ongoing renovation project);
• The size of the puddle and her observation of water dripping from a ceiling rafter after the fall;
• The fact that rain had ceased approximately two hours before the incident; and
• Surveillance footage showing no H-E-B employee had walked the toy aisle in the two hours preceding her fall.

The trial court granted summary judgment for H-E-B. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that prior leaks elsewhere in the store need not be located near the injury site to support a constructive knowledge finding. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the summary judgment.

The Court’s Holdings

1.  Duration Evidence Is Non-Negotiable

To survive a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must adduce some evidence showing how long the dangerous condition existed before the injury. Without temporal evidence, a court cannot charge a premises owner with constructive notice — regardless of how compelling the plaintiff’s other circumstantial evidence may appear. The Court restated this “time-notice rule” as firmly rooted in Texas jurisprudence and declined to carve out any exception.

2.  Prior Leaks Elsewhere Do Not Establish Notice of a Specific Hazard

Knowledge of roof leaks in other parts of the store is not probative of constructive knowledge of a puddle in a different aisle. Citing City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez (Tex. 1996), the Court reaffirmed that the knowledge inquiry is tied to the dangerous condition “at the time and place injury occurs” — not to antecedent conditions elsewhere in the premises. A roof leak must be in the vicinity of the liquid on the floor to support a constructive knowledge finding.

3.  Rain, Puddle Size, and Dripping Do Not Substitute for Temporal Evidence

Each piece of circumstantial evidence Peterson offered — cessation of rain two hours earlier, observed dripping from a rafter, and the puddle’s size — was rejected as insufficient. The Court held that evidence of a possible cause of a condition is not evidence of the condition’s duration on the floor. Equally, evidence of the absence of employee inspections merely shows proximity potential; it does not establish how long the hazard existed.

4.  Internal Inspection Policies Do Not Raise the Standard of Care

H-E-B’s heightened rainstorm inspection protocol was irrelevant to the constructive notice analysis. A premises owner’s internal safety policies do not impose a higher duty of care than that of an ordinary, reasonable landowner. Plaintiffs cannot leverage a defendant’s own protocols as a substitute for temporal evidence.

Practical Takeaways for Insurers

• No temporal evidence, no constructive notice. When evaluating slip-and-fall claims, confirm whether the claimant has any evidence — video, witness testimony, maintenance logs, or otherwise — establishing how long the condition existed before the incident. Absence of this evidence is a path to summary judgment.
• Geography of prior incidents matters. Prior leak or spill records from different areas of the premises are not interchangeable. Ensure claim investigations map the location of prior incidents against the injury site. Records of remote conditions can be affirmatively rebutted.
• Investigation protocols and incident documentation remain critical. While internal policies cannot raise the standard of care, thorough incident reports, contemporaneous manager observations, and maintenance records remain your best evidentiary tools to rebut constructive notice arguments.
• No relaxed burden in Texas. The Court again rejected calls for a lighter standard in slip-and-fall cases when evidence is limited. Texas courts will not lower the bar simply because proving duration is difficult.

Key Precedent Referenced by the Court

• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) — Foundational time-notice rule
• City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 931 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1996) — Roof leaks must correlate to injury location
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998) — Circumstantial evidence insufficient when duration is speculative
• Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) — Video of employees near hazard in preceding minutes = constructive notice
• Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi, 689 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2024) — Knowledge must be of hazard at time and place of injury

For questions about this alert or how it may affect pending or future claims, please contact:

Ramy Elmasri  |  Clausen Miller P.C.
16945 Northchase Dr., Suite 1400  |  Houston, TX 77060
346.229.4612  |  [email protected]