Actual or Constructive Knowledge
The first element of premises liability, of actual or constructive knowledge is not met.
To meet actual or constructive knowledge a premises owner needs to have sufficient knowledge of a condition to be liable for the injuries caused by the condition if the plaintiff proves the defendant: knew that the hazard was on the floor and negligently failed to remove it; or that the hazard was on the floor so long that it should have been discovered and removed in the exercise of ordinary care depending on the conspicuity of the hazard.
In Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992), an older woman filed an action after she fell in the floral section of a store on slick spot of GreenGlo. The court found that simply because the store 's actions may have created the risk, it does not establish that they have knowledge of the risk. In Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983), Corbin slipped on …show more content…
Buddie 's Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex. 1975), it had been raining outside, and as Rosas entered the store he slipped just beyond the entrance of the store. The court held that the danger of wet floor was not as open and obvious as to relieve store of any duty or to charge plaintiff with knowledge and full appreciation of the nature and extent of danger. id. at 536. In Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates, 451 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex. 1970), plaintiff slipped on a rug and fell, as the result of her fall she broke her right wrist. The court held that the injury was proximately caused by the defendants’ failure to make their showroom reasonably safe for business invitees. id. at 754.
In Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 251-52 (Tex. 2014), a mail carrier slipped and fell on ice that was caused by the weather. The defendant warned the plaintiff of the ice by stating, “don’t slip.” The court held that homeowner who stated “don’t slip” to pedestrian adequately warned pedestrian of dangerous icy condition.
The first element of premises liability, of actual or constructive knowledge is not met.
To meet actual or constructive knowledge a premises owner needs to have sufficient knowledge of a condition to be liable for the injuries caused by the condition if the plaintiff proves the defendant: knew that the hazard was on the floor and negligently failed to remove it; or that the hazard was on the floor so long that it should have been discovered and removed in the exercise of ordinary care depending on the conspicuity of the hazard.
In Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992), an older woman filed an action after she fell in the floral section of a store on slick spot of GreenGlo. The court found that simply because the store 's actions may have created the risk, it does not establish that they have knowledge of the risk. In Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983), Corbin slipped on …show more content…
Buddie 's Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex. 1975), it had been raining outside, and as Rosas entered the store he slipped just beyond the entrance of the store. The court held that the danger of wet floor was not as open and obvious as to relieve store of any duty or to charge plaintiff with knowledge and full appreciation of the nature and extent of danger. id. at 536. In Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates, 451 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Tex. 1970), plaintiff slipped on a rug and fell, as the result of her fall she broke her right wrist. The court held that the injury was proximately caused by the defendants’ failure to make their showroom reasonably safe for business invitees. id. at 754.
In Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 251-52 (Tex. 2014), a mail carrier slipped and fell on ice that was caused by the weather. The defendant warned the plaintiff of the ice by stating, “don’t slip.” The court held that homeowner who stated “don’t slip” to pedestrian adequately warned pedestrian of dangerous icy condition.