Slip and Fall Claims in Texas
A slip and fall claim in Texas rarely turns on whether the floor was dangerous. It turns on whether the business knew, or should have known, and that is a question about time.
- 138Google reviews
- 3Attorneys on your case
- 2 yrsTexas filing deadline
- No feeUnless we win
What actually has to be proved
For a customer, who is an invitee, the claim requires that a condition on the property posed an unreasonable risk of harm, that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of it, that it failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, and that this caused the injury.
The knowledge element is where most claims are won or lost. A genuinely dangerous condition that appeared moments earlier will usually not support a claim, because the business had no opportunity to find it.
Constructive knowledge is a question about time
Constructive knowledge means the hazard existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it. Proximity is not enough on its own: an employee standing near a spill does not establish that the business knew about it.
What establishes duration is evidence about the condition of the hazard itself. A spill with dirt tracked through it, cart tracks, dried edges or multiple footprints has been there for a while. That evidence exists only until someone cleans it up, which is why photographing it immediately matters so much.
Inspection records
Businesses that inspect on a schedule record it, and those records cut both ways. Sweep logs showing an inspection five minutes before the fall support the business. Gaps, missing entries, or a policy that was not actually followed support the claim.
These records are requested early, along with surveillance footage, which is routinely overwritten within days or weeks.
The open and obvious defense
An owner generally owes no duty to warn about a hazard that is open and obvious or already known to the visitor. It is raised in most cases and is not always correct.
Where a visitor had no practical alternative but to encounter the hazard, or where the owner should have anticipated harm despite the hazard being apparent, the argument weakens. Whether a condition really was obvious is also frequently a question of fact rather than something the business gets to assert.
Comparative responsibility
Section 33.001 applies. Distraction, footwear and failing to look where you were walking are all raised. They reduce recovery proportionately rather than defeating the claim, unless the injured person is 51 percent or more responsible.
Businesses design environments to draw attention to displays and signage, which is relevant when the same business argues a customer should have been watching the floor.
What to do at the time
Photograph the hazard before it is cleaned, from several angles and including its extent and any tracking through it. Report it before leaving and ask for a copy of the incident report. Note the names of staff who attended and any witnesses. Keep the footwear you were wearing, unwashed, because it becomes an issue later.
Summary
| Element | What it means | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Unreasonable risk of harm | The condition was genuinely dangerous | Photographs, the nature of the substance or defect |
| Actual knowledge | The business knew about it | Staff reports, prior complaints, it was created by staff |
| Constructive knowledge | It was there long enough to be found on reasonable inspection | Tracking, dried edges, cart tracks, footprints, inspection logs, footage |
| Failure of reasonable care | Nothing adequate was done about it | Absence of warning signs, cones or cleaning |
| Causation | The condition caused the injury | Medical records, mechanism of the fall |
Keep reading
Texas Premises Liability Lawyer
A property owner is not automatically responsible when someone is hurt on their land.
Practice areaTrampoline Park Injury Claims in Texas
Trampoline parks require a signed waiver before anyone is allowed to jump.
ReadSettlements Without Surgery
Surgery is the single largest variable in a slip and fall claim, so a case that resolves without it is valued on a different basis.
ReadPremises Liability Lawsuits in Texas
Most premises claims settle. Suit becomes necessary when the occupier disputes that it knew about...
ReadWhat To Do After a Slip and Fall
The hazard that caused the fall will be cleaned up within minutes and the footage overwritten within days.
ReadTexas Slip and Fall Law
Whether you can claim at all depends on why you were on the property.
Read
Frequently asked questions
No. You generally have to show the business knew about the hazard, or that it had been there long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it. A spill that appeared moments earlier usually will not support a claim.
Through the condition of the hazard itself. Dirt tracked through a spill, cart tracks, dried edges or multiple footprints all indicate duration. That evidence exists only until someone cleans it up, which is why photographs taken immediately matter.
Not necessarily. The open and obvious defense has limits, particularly where you had no practical alternative but to encounter the hazard, or where the business should have anticipated harm anyway. Whether it really was obvious is often a question of fact.
No. Comparative responsibility under section 33.001 reduces recovery in proportion to your share of fault rather than defeating the claim, unless you are 51 percent or more responsible. Keep the footwear unwashed, because it becomes an issue.
Photograph the hazard before it is cleaned, report it before you leave and ask for a copy of the incident report, note the staff who attended and any witnesses, and get medical assessment. Surveillance footage is often overwritten within days.
Talk it through with a lawyer
A free consultation covers whether you have a claim, what the deadline is, and what insurance is actually available.
Contingency fee. You pay nothing unless we win.