In recent years, premises liability cases have become more difficult for plaintiffs to establish in Texas. In June 2024, the Supreme Court of Texas reminded both sides of the “v.” just how important it is that plaintiffs ensure the facts of their case support all of the elements of their premises liability claims and why defendants should push back, when that burden has not been met.

The Supreme Court of Texas’ ruling in Pay & Save, Inc. v. Canales highlights how a premises liability claims will fall short if no unreasonably dangerous condition factually exists. 691 S.W.3d 499, 502 (Tex. 2024). In this case, a customer raised premises liability claims against a grocery store after he sustained injuries from falling after getting his foot stuck in an open side of a wooden pallet display of watermelons. The jury awarded the customer a judgment of over $6 million dollars in damages. After a split ruling from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, the customer and the grocery store both petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of Texas’ review.

To prevail in a premises liability case, an invitee must show that (1) the premises owner had actual or constructive knowledge, (2) of some unreasonably dangerous condition on the premises, (3) but the owner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risk of harm, (4) which proximately caused plaintiff’s personal injuries. While all four elements must be met in order for a plaintiff to successfully establish a premises liability claim, this case focused on element (2), unreasonably dangerous conditions.

So how does the Court determine whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous, you ask? The Supreme Court of Texas established that whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is often a fact question. United Supermarkets, LLC v. McIntire, 646 S.W.3d 800, 802 (Tex. 2022). The facts surrounding the case must indicate that there was more than a “mere possibility” of injury from the condition. Texas courts have outlined that at minimum, plaintiffs should provide sufficient evidence of prior accidents, injuries, complaints, reports, regulatory non-compliance, or some surrounding circumstances that transformed the condition into one measurably more likely to cause injury. Christ v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 664 S.W.3d 82, 87-90 (Tex. 2023).

In this case, the evidence presented by the grocery store indicated that the customer had previously visited the store hundreds of times and had purchased watermelons without accident. The record indicated that there was no evidence of prior complaints, reports, or injuries involving such wooden pallets at any of Defendant’s 150 store locations nor any other similar grocery stores. The grocery store argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the premises liability because the wooden pallet was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. The Supreme Court of Texas agreed.

The Supreme Court of Texas explained, “[the wooden pallet] was a common condition, a type of hazard that we encounter—and avoid—every day by exercising a modicum of common sense, prudence, and caution.” The Court reversed and rendered judgement for the grocery store on all claims.

Pay & Save, Inc. v. Canales is a good reminder that plaintiffs must prove every element of their premises liability claims.



Insurance Adjuster Tip: Proper discovery is vital in premises liability claims. Conducting preliminary discovery such as requesting and salvaging surveillance camera footage videos from your client as soon as an incident is reported may be indispensable evidence to your case. Premises liability claims rely on the facts, therefore, the more evidence collected to support your claim the better your odds are at any level of litigation.