A slip and fall lawyer San Antonio shoppers call after a fall at a North Star Mall food court usually starts with one question. How long was the hazard on the floor? Texas premises law does not ask whether the fall was painful. It asks whether the property owner knew, or should have known, about the condition that caused it. The Texas Supreme Court set that standard in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002), and Bexar County juries still apply it today.
Slip and Fall Lawyer San Antonio Basics: The Four Elements
A customer in a store is an invitee under Texas law, and the owner owes an invitee a duty of reasonable care. That duty has four parts. First, the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises. Second, the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Third, the owner failed to use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk. Fourth, that failure proximately caused the injury. The Texas Supreme Court laid out these elements in Corbin v. Safeway Stores, 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983), and repeated them in Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992). Every element matters, but the first one ends more San Antonio cases than the other three combined.
Why Notice Decides Most Texas Premises Cases
Knowledge can be proven three ways. The owner or an employee put the substance on the floor. Someone at the store actually knew it was there. Or the condition existed long enough that a reasonable owner should have discovered it. That third route is called constructive notice, and Reece made it harder. The court held that an employee standing near a spill proves nothing by itself. Proximity shows the hazard could have been found, not that it should have been. A claimant needs temporal evidence. Track marks through the liquid, a melted drink, a wilted produce leaf, or a sweep log with a two-hour gap all speak to time. A fresh, clear puddle with no history usually does not.
What a Slip and Fall Lawyer San Antonio Stores Face Looks For First
Evidence in a premises case lives on the store’s own systems. Surveillance footage often overwrites within days, sometimes within hours. Sweep logs, inspection checklists, and incident reports are internal records the store controls. A written request to preserve that material, sent quickly, changes what a jury will eventually see. Photographs taken at the scene matter for a different reason. They document the hazard’s size, color, and surroundings before anyone cleans it. Witness names, including the employee who responded, are worth writing down before leaving. Medical care the same day matters most. A gap between the fall and the first exam invites an argument that the injury came from somewhere else.
Comparative Fault and the 51 Percent Bar
Texas follows a modified comparative-fault rule. Under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.001, a claimant found more than 50 percent responsible recovers nothing. Below that line, the award is reduced by the claimant’s share. Store defendants use this rule constantly. They argue the hazard was open and obvious, that the customer was looking at a phone, or that warning cones were in place. Footwear, lighting, and the customer’s path through the aisle all become evidence. None of this defeats a claim automatically. It does mean the claimant’s own conduct is on trial alongside the store’s.
The Two-Year Filing Clock
Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003 gives an injured person two years from the date of the fall to file suit. Negotiation with a store’s insurer does not pause that period. Many San Antonio premises claims involve national retailers with third-party administrators, and those adjusters move slowly by design. The two-year rule has narrow exceptions, but planning around them is a mistake. A claim that is still in negotiation when the deadline passes is generally finished.
The Bottom Line
Texas premises law starts from a neutral position, not from sympathy for the person who fell. The store wins if the claimant cannot show how long the hazard existed. The store also controls most of the evidence that answers that question. That is the honest gap between what the law says and how a claim plays out. A slip and fall lawyer San Antonio residents hire can subpoena footage and logs, but only if that material still exists when the request arrives.
Frequently asked questions
Under Corbin v. Safeway and Keetch v. Kroger, an invitee must show the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition, the condition posed an unreasonable risk, the owner failed to use reasonable care, and that failure caused the injury.
The Texas Supreme Court held that constructive notice requires evidence of how long the hazard existed. An employee simply being near a spill does not prove the store should have discovered it.
Yes, as long as your share of fault is 50 percent or less. Under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.001, a claimant found more than 50 percent responsible recovers nothing, and a smaller share reduces the award.
Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003 gives an injured person two years from the date of the fall, and negotiating with the store’s insurer does not pause that deadline.
Ready to meet your legal match?
Right case, right lawyer, zero awkward first dates. Tell us what happened and we’ll introduce you to attorneys who actually fit.
Get MatchedKeep reading: Car Accident Lawyer San Antonio: What to Do After a Crash · Texas Proportionate Responsibility: The 51% Bar Explained · Texas Statute of Limitations for Injury Claims
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Texas premises liability rules depend on the facts of each case, including how the hazard arose and how long it existed. If you were injured in a fall, seek medical care first.