Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Mary Francis Taylor sued Brookshire Grocery Co. for injuries that she suffered to her knee when she slipped and fell on a piece of partially melted ice on a tile floor in front of a self-service soft drink dispenser in a Brookshire grocery store. The trial court denied Brookshire’s motion for summary judgment, granted partial summary judgment for Taylor on premises liability and rendered judgment for Taylor for damages found by the jury. The court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court granted Brookshire’s petition for discretionary review to address two questions: whether the dispenser or the ice on the floor were unreasonably dangerous conditions, and if the latter was an unreasonably dangerous condition, was there any evidence that Brookshire was or should have been aware of that condition? HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. Brookshire was obliged to use reasonable care to protect Taylor, its invitee, from any unreasonably dangerous condition in its store of which it had actual or constructive knowledge. No evidence, the court stated, suggests that the soft drink dispenser was set up in such a way that ice on the floor was a greater danger than one would ordinarily encounter with such dispensers or that customers, though prone to spills, were any more prone around this dispenser. Taylor’s arguments that there should have been more mats and warning signs are relevant to her contention that Brookshire did not exercise reasonable care, the court stated, but they are not evidence that the dispenser itself was unreasonably dangerous. Otherwise, the court stated, similar evidence could be used to show that the entire grocery store was unreasonably dangerous, since it is almost always the case that something more could have been done to prevent a customer from being struck by an article falling off a shelf or from slipping on the floor. A condition is not unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not foolproof, the court stated. The only unreasonably dangerous condition in this case was the ice on the floor, the court stated,. Brookshire did not have actual knowledge of the ice on which Taylor slipped, the court stated, agreeing with the 6th Court of Appeals that there was no evidence that the condition had existed long enough, the ice not having fully melted, for Brookshire to have constructive notice. Because Taylor adduced no evidence that Brookshire had constructive knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous condition that caused her harm, the ice on which she slipped, the court held that Brookshire was entitled to summary judgment. OPINION:Hecht, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jefferson, C.J., Wainwright, Brister, Green, Johnson and Willett, J.J., joined. CONCURRENCE:Johnson, J. “The facts involved in suits by invitees against premises owners frequently are in question; the elements of a cause of action should not be. The parties do not ask us to re-examine or clarify Corbin [v. Safeway, 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983)] in this case. We should do so in an appropriate case.” DISSENT:O’Neill, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Medina, J., joined. “The Court concludes Brookshire could be liable for injury caused by an individual ice cube on an unmatted tile floor next to a drink dispenser, but as a matter of law cannot be liable for the manner of display that regularly caused ice to fall there. While I agree with the Court that Taylor presented no evidence Brookshire knew that the particular cube upon which Taylor slipped was on the floor and thus liability could not be imposed on that basis, I believe Taylor presented some evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the manner in which the drink dispenser was set up caused ice to fall on the unprotected tile floor on a regular basis, creating a recurring dangerous condition of which Brookshire was aware. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.