What a New Texas Supreme Court Ruling Means for Your Slip and Fall Claim – A Texas Supreme Court ruling has made it harder to win a slip and fall case against a store, and the reasoning behind it matters for anyone hurt in a fall in McAllen or anywhere else in Texas. The case, H-E-B, L.P. v. Peterson, involved a shopper who slipped, fell, and was seriously hurt, yet still lost her case after years of litigation.
Her story is a useful, if frustrating, lesson in what Texas law actually requires to hold a store responsible for a hazard on its floor. Ryan Solis Law Group has spent more than 21 years handling slip and fall claims in McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley, and this ruling is a reminder of how much the evidence gathered in the first hours after a fall can matter.
What Happened in H-E-B v. Peterson
Marissa Peterson was shopping at an H-E-B store when she slipped on a puddle in the toy aisle and fell, hitting her knee. She saw what appeared to be water dripping from a ceiling rafter above the puddle. It had rained earlier that day, and the store was in the middle of a roof remodeling project that had caused leaks in other parts of the building over the prior two years, though not previously in that specific aisle.
Surveillance footage showed that no H-E-B employee had walked down that aisle in the two hours before Peterson fell. The store manager who responded found a small wet spot but no active dripping, and believed it may have come from a wet shopping cart or umbrella given the earlier rain.
The case went through several rounds. A trial court initially ruled in H-E-B’s favor. Peterson appealed, and the court of appeals reversed that ruling, finding that the history of roof leaks elsewhere in the store created a fact question about whether H-E-B should have known about the hazard. H-E-B then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the ruling in H-E-B’s favor, ending Peterson’s case.
Why the Court Ruled Against Peterson: The Time-Notice Rule
In Texas, proving a store was negligent for a hazard on its floor requires more than showing the hazard existed. Under what courts often call the time-notice rule, an injured person generally has to show the store actually knew about the hazard, or that the hazard existed long enough that the store should have discovered and fixed it through reasonable inspection.
The Texas Supreme Court held that Peterson had no evidence showing how long the puddle had been on the floor before she fell. The court found that several facts she pointed to, water still visibly dripping at the moment of the fall, the size of the puddle, the earlier rain, the two-hour gap with no employee in the aisle, and the history of leaks elsewhere in the store, each might explain how the puddle got there, but none of them showed how long it had actually been sitting on the floor before her fall. Under Texas law, that gap was fatal to her claim.
The ruling reinforces a legal standard that has existed in Texas premises liability law for years: circumstantial evidence about how a hazard was created is not the same as evidence about how long it existed. Courts require the second kind of evidence specifically, not just the first.
What This Means for Slip and Fall Claims Going Forward
This ruling does not change what a store owes to customers under Texas law. It reinforces an existing, demanding standard, and makes clear that Texas courts will hold plaintiffs to it strictly, even in a sympathetic case involving a real injury and a store with a documented history of similar problems.
For anyone injured in a McAllen slip and fall or a fall anywhere else in Texas, the practical takeaway is that the strength of a claim often comes down to a narrow, specific type of evidence: proof of how long the hazard was actually there before the fall, not just proof that a hazard existed.
What Evidence Actually Proves a Store Should Have Known About a Hazard
Based on how the Texas Supreme Court analyzed the Peterson case, some categories of evidence carry far more weight than others.
- Video footage showing the hazard already present, or showing employees passing near it repeatedly, within a specific and identifiable window of time before the fall. This is the clearest kind of time-notice evidence and the type the court’s opinion pointed to as sufficient.
- A store employee who saw the hazard before the fall and did not report or address it, which can establish that the store had actual knowledge rather than requiring proof of how long the hazard existed.
- A customer or employee who notified store staff about the hazard before the fall occurred.
Notably, the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion specifically rejected some categories of evidence that people often assume would help a claim. Cart tracks, footprints, or dirt tracked through a spill do not, on their own, establish how long a hazard existed, and a condition that looks old or dirty is not enough either. If you have been told that photos of tracked-through footprints alone would prove your case, this ruling is a reminder that Texas courts require more specific timing evidence than that.
What to Do Right Away After a Slip and Fall in Texas
Given how much the timing evidence matters, what you do in the minutes and hours after a fall can meaningfully affect your claim. Our guide on the steps to take after a personal injury accident in McAllen and our guide on gathering evidence for a personal injury claim in McAllen cover the general documentation process in more detail, and our slip and fall specific guidewalks through the immediate steps for this type of accident.
A few points are worth emphasizing given the Peterson ruling specifically: do not leave the store before reporting the fall and making sure an incident report is filed, note the exact location of any visible security cameras, get the names of anyone nearby who may have witnessed the fall or seen the hazard beforehand, and photograph the hazard, the surrounding area, and anything nearby (like a leaking ceiling or a wet floor sign) that could speak to how it got there.
Contacting an attorney promptly also matters for a reason specific to this kind of evidence: once a store is on notice of a potential claim, it generally has an obligation to preserve relevant surveillance footage and records. Footage that shows how long a hazard existed is often overwritten or deleted on a routine schedule if no one asks the store to preserve it, sometimes within days.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the H-E-B v. Peterson ruling mean I can’t win a slip and fall case in Texas?
No. It means Texas courts require specific evidence about how long a hazard existed, not just evidence that a hazard existed. Cases with strong timing evidence, such as video footage or an employee who knew about the hazard, are not affected by the outcome in this case.
What is the time-notice rule in Texas premises liability law?
It is the legal standard requiring an injured person to show that a property owner either actually knew about a dangerous condition or that the condition existed long enough that the owner should have discovered it through reasonable care. Proving only that a hazard existed, without proof of how long, is generally not enough under Texas law.
Do footprints or cart tracks through a spill prove how long it was there?
According to the Texas Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Peterson case, no. The court specifically found that cart tracks, footprints, or dirt in a hazard do not, by themselves, establish how long the condition existed.
What should I do immediately after slipping and falling at a store in Texas?
Report the fall and make sure an incident report is filed before you leave, photograph the hazard and surrounding area, note the location of security cameras, and get contact information for any witnesses. Speaking with an attorney promptly can also help make sure surveillance footage is preserved before it is deleted.
How long do I have to file a slip and fall lawsuit in Texas?
Texas generally allows two years from the date of the injury to file a personal injury lawsuit, though evidence, especially surveillance footage, should be gathered and preserved far sooner than that deadline.
Schedule Your Free Consultation in McAllen Today
Ryan Solis Law Group | Personal Attention with Firm-Level Resources
Phone: (956) 686-9600 Website: rsolislaw.com Address: 820 E Hackberry Ave, McAllen, TX 78501
Serving all of Texas. Proudly serving McAllen, Edinburg, Mission, Pharr, San Juan, Alamo, Donna, Weslaco, Mercedes, Harlingen, Brownsville, Raymondville, Willacy County, and all of the Rio Grande Valley.
No Fees Unless You Win
If we are not able to recover any funds for you, then you pay absolutely no fee or costs.
CALL (956) 686-9600 FOR YOUR FREE CONSULTATION
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It summarizes a published court opinion and general Texas law; it does not address every fact pattern, and outcomes in any individual case depend on its specific evidence. Speak with a licensed attorney about your particular situation. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
