CaseCited

Not legal advice. CaseCited provides AI-generated legal information for research only. AI can make mistakes — verify every citation and consult a licensed attorney before relying on any result.

Wal-Mart Stores v. Gonzalez

968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998)

Good LawSupreme Court of TexasJune 5, 1998Cited 987 times

Quick Take

Wal-Mart Stores v. Gonzalez is a significant case in Personal Injury law, with 987 citations. It's regularly referenced in legal arguments and court opinions. Its citation status is "good law," meaning courts continue to follow and affirm this ruling — it remains authoritative.

How to Use This Case

When to cite:

This case has good-law status and is regularly cited in Personal Injury arguments. It's appropriate to cite when you need authority on Constructive knowledge requirement or Temporal evidence.

Key arguments it supports:

  • Proof of a hazardous condition alone is insufficient to establish constructive knowledge
  • Plaintiff must present evidence of how long the condition existed before the accident
  • Without temporal evidence, constructive knowledge cannot be inferred and summary judgment is appropriate

Court level & jurisdiction:

As a Supreme Court of Texas decision, this ruling is binding on all lower courts within its jurisdiction and highly persuasive nationwide. With 987 citations, courts clearly find it authoritative.

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court refined the premises liability framework for slip-and-fall cases by addressing what evidence is sufficient to establish constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition. The Court held that mere proof that a substance was on the floor is insufficient — the plaintiff must present some evidence of how long the condition existed.

The Court established that temporal evidence (how long the condition existed) is critical and that without it, a plaintiff cannot establish that the owner 'should have known' about the hazard through reasonable inspection protocols.

Key Holdings

  • 1Proof of a hazardous condition alone is insufficient to establish constructive knowledge
  • 2Plaintiff must present evidence of how long the condition existed before the accident
  • 3Without temporal evidence, constructive knowledge cannot be inferred and summary judgment is appropriate

Why This Case Matters

Tightened the evidentiary requirements for constructive knowledge in slip-and-fall cases, making these claims more difficult for plaintiffs but providing clearer guidance for both sides.

Facts

Customer slipped on a macaroni salad substance in a Wal-Mart store. No witness could testify to how long the substance had been on the floor. Customer presented only evidence that the substance was there and caused the fall.

Legal Principles

Constructive knowledge requirementTemporal evidencePremises liability burden of proof

Statutes Interpreted

  • Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 75.002

Related Cases

Keetch v. Kroger Co.

845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992)

Good Law

The Texas Supreme Court established the framework for premises liability claims involving slip-and-fall accidents in retail establishments. The Court held that an invitee must prove that the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition and failed to exercise ordinary care to reduce or eliminate the risk.

Supreme Court of Texas•1992•Cited 1205 times

Get Weekly Case Updates

New case summaries and legal research tips delivered to your inbox every week. Free for Texas attorneys.