Texas Slip and Fall Laws
If you were injured after slipping or tripping on someone else’s property in Texas, your ability to recover compensation depends on more than just proving you fell. Texas law doesn’t make property owners automatically responsible for accidents. Whether you can bring a successful case depends on who controlled the property, what caused the hazard, how long it was there, and whether the owner failed to fix or warn about it.
Texas has detailed legal standards for holding someone accountable in a slip and fall case. Some of these rules come from court decisions, while others are spelled out in state statutes. Several of the most important factors include how the law defines your status on the property, whether the danger was obvious, and whether the property owner had any legal notice of the problem before the fall.
How Texas Law Handles Slip and Fall Cases
Under Texas law, most slip and fall claims fall under premises liability, a branch of Texas negligence law. The elements of liability in a premises defect case, such as notice, breach of duty, and causation, are grounded in Texas common law. Once liability is established, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001 governs how fault is divided and whether the injured person can recover damages.
The key question is whether the property owner or the person in control of the property failed to take reasonable steps to correct or warn about unsafe conditions on the premises. Common hazards that lead to slip and fall claims include:
- Wet or slick floors in grocery stores or restaurants
- Broken staircases or handrails
- Cracked pavement or uneven flooring
- Poor lighting in walkways or stairwells
- Unmarked hazards like debris, cords, or misplaced merchandise
Not all injuries are treated the same under Texas law. In Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992), the Texas Supreme Court drew a clear line between injuries caused by a condition on the property and those caused by an ongoing activity. The distinction between a premises condition and a negligent activity determines which legal standards apply and what has to be shown to prove responsibility.
Premises Defect
Most slip and fall cases involve a premises defect—a hazard that existed on the property itself, like a spill, loose tile, or broken concrete. In premises cases, the law requires the injured person to show that the hazard created an unreasonable risk, and that the property owner either knew about it or should have discovered it.
Negligent Activity
A negligent activity claim applies when the injury happens during an ongoing act. For example, an employee mopping the floor and causing a fall before any warning signs are placed. These claims are less common but follow slightly different legal standards.
The Texas Supreme Court clarified the distinction in Keetch v. Kroger, emphasizing that a negligent activity requires an injury caused by the activity itself, not a static condition.
What You Have to Prove in a Texas Slip and Fall Case
To win a premises liability case in Texas, you need to prove four things:
- The condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm
- The property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
- The owner failed to take reasonable steps to correct or warn about it
- That failure caused your injuries
The most contested part of many cases is whether the property owner had notice of the hazard.
Actual vs. Constructive Knowledge
Texas law distinguishes between two types of knowledge in these cases.
Actual Knowledge
Actual knowledge means the owner or someone working for them knew about the hazard before the fall. For example, if a customer told an employee there was a spill in Aisle 5, and the store did nothing about it, that may be enough to prove actual knowledge.
In Albertsons v. Mohammadi (2024), the Texas Supreme Court held that actual knowledge has to relate to the specific condition that caused the fall at the time of the incident—not just a general awareness that something might become dangerous.
Constructive Knowledge
Constructive knowledge exists when the hazard was present long enough that the owner should have discovered it through proper inspections. For instance, if water has been on the floor for two hours in a store that’s supposed to check for hazards every 30 minutes, that may establish constructive notice.
In Wal-Mart v. Gonzalez, the Court ruled that plaintiffs must show the condition existed long enough for the owner to have discovered it. Speculation (e.g., footprints in a spill) isn’t enough without more specific proof.
Visitor Status Affects Your Legal Rights
Texas law imposes different duties on property owners based on the legal classification of the visitor. This structure is rooted in long-standing Texas common law and is consistently applied in premises liability cases. Your rights in a slip and fall case depend on whether you entered the property as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser, since each status carries different legal protections.
Invitees (e.g., customers, hotel guests)
Invitees are owed the highest duty of care. This includes a duty to inspect the premises, fix known hazards, and warn of dangers the owner knew or should have known about through reasonable inspection.
- See CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Tex. 2000) (reaffirming duty to protect invitees from conditions owner knew or should have known about)
- Also see Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983) (discussing how business practices that create recurring hazards can trigger liability even without actual knowledge)
Licensees (e.g., social guests)
Owners don’t owe licensees the same inspection duty. Instead, they are required to warn about known hazards that aren’t obvious, but they are not required to inspect for unknown dangers.
- See Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380, 385–86 (Tex. 2016) (clarifying actual knowledge standard for licensees)
Trespassers
Generally, a property owner’s only duty is to avoid causing willful, wanton, or grossly negligent harm to a trespasser. Texas law does not require owners to inspect their property or warn trespassers about dangerous conditions.
- See City of El Paso v. Collins, 483 S.W.3d 742, 747 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.) (discussing landowner’s limited duty to trespassers)
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine (for children)
Texas recognizes an exception to the general trespasser rule for children under the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance. If a property contains a dangerous artificial condition likely to attract children, such as an unfenced swimming pool, machinery, or stacked construction materials, and the owner knows or should know children are likely to trespass, they may have a duty to take reasonable steps to secure the area. See Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (discussing application of the attractive nuisance doctrine in Texas)
Although the attractive nuisance doctrine arises from common law, Chapter 75 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Recreational Use Statute) may override or limit liability when the property qualifies as recreational land. In those cases, the owner is generally not liable unless the injury was caused by gross negligence, malicious intent, or willful conduct.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 75.002(e), 75.003
Other Laws That Affect Slip and Fall Claims
Two-Year Filing Deadline
Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.003, injured persons have two years from the date of the fall to file a lawsuit. Missing this deadline usually ends the case, no matter how strong the claim is.
The 51% Bar Rule
Texas follows a modified comparative negligence system under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001. In a slip and fall case, if you’re found more than 50% responsible for causing your own injuries, you can’t recover any damages—even if the property owner was partially at fault.
If you’re 50% or less at fault, you can still recover compensation, but the amount is reduced by your share of the blame. For example, a person awarded $100,000 in damages who is found 20% responsible would receive $80,000 after the reduction.
Defenses Property Owners May Use
The Hazard Was “Open and Obvious”
In Austin v. Kroger, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that property owners generally don’t have to warn about obvious dangers. However, two exceptions may still create liability:
- Necessary use: The only way to access a space required you to walk through the hazard
- Criminal activity: The hazard resulted from foreseeable criminal behavior, like poor lighting in a high-crime area
Lack of Notice
Owners sometimes argue that the hazard appeared so recently they had no chance to discover or fix it. For example, if a drink was spilled and someone slipped seconds later, there may be no liability unless employees knew about it beforehand.
Claiming the Fall Was Partly Your Fault
Property owners may claim you were distracted, not paying attention, or acting carelessly. They may argue you:
- Walked past warning signs
- Wore unsafe footwear
- Entered a restricted area
- Were looking at your phone
Sole Proximate Cause
Under the sole proximate cause defense, the property owner argues that you alone were responsible for the fall and that their actions had nothing to do with it.
Preserving Your Rights Under Texas Slip and Fall Law
Under Texas law, your ability to recover compensation depends on proving specific facts, including how long the hazard existed, what the property owner knew, and how the fall occurred. Taking the right steps after the incident can make or break your case.
- Get medical care right away: Medical records help establish causation and damages, both required under Texas negligence law.
- Report the fall to a manager, landlord, or property owner: This helps establish that the owner was made aware of the hazard and creates a record that may support actual knowledge.
- Photograph the hazard and surrounding area: Visual evidence may support a claim that the condition posed an unreasonable risk and was present long enough to establish constructive knowledge.
- Collect witness names and contact info: Testimony can support how long the hazard was there or what the owner or employees did (or didn’t) do in response.
- Save clothing or footwear if they show signs of the hazard (e.g., residue): Physical evidence may support your version of events and defend against claims that the hazard was minor or nonexistent.
- Write down what happened as soon as possible: Texas law emphasizes the details of timing and knowledge—contemporaneous notes help preserve memory and strengthen credibility.
- Don’t give recorded statements to the insurance company: Anything you say can be used to argue comparative fault under Texas’s 51% bar rule.
- Contact a premises liability attorney quickly: An attorney can send preservation letters, investigate before evidence disappears, and make sure deadlines under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003 are met.
Hazards are typically cleaned up quickly, and without strong early evidence, it may be impossible to prove how long the condition existed or whether the owner had a fair chance to correct it. Texas law requires you to prove more than just that you fell.
What You Can Recover If You Win
Texas law allows injured people to recover compensation for both financial and non-financial losses in valid premises liability claims. Although the right to recover economic and non-economic damages is primarily established through common law, Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code governs exemplary damages and outlines how economic and non-economic damages factor into those calculations.
Economic Losses
- Past and future medical expenses
- Lost income during recovery
- Reduced earning capacity if the injury affects long-term employment
- Vocational retraining when returning to prior work is no longer possible
- Costs of household assistance or daily living support caused by the injury
Non-Economic Losses
- Physical pain and suffering
- Disfigurement, including permanent scarring
- Mental or emotional distress, such as anxiety, depression, or trauma
- Physical impairment affecting daily activities
- Loss of enjoyment of life when hobbies, recreation, or independence are impacted
Exemplary Damages (Rare)
Under § 41.003 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if the property owner’s conduct involved gross negligence, fraud, or malice. Exemplary damages are not intended to compensate for loss—they exist to punish conduct that shows a serious disregard for safety. Texas law requires clear and convincing evidence, and in most slip and fall cases, exemplary damages are not available unless extreme misconduct is proven.
How Cases Have Shaped Slip and Fall Law
Several landmark Texas cases help define how premises liability is applied today:
- Corbin v. Safeway: Owners may be liable if their method of operation creates recurring hazards
- Keetch v. Kroger: Injury has to result from the condition, not just an act that might have caused it
- Wal-Mart v. Gonzalez: Constructive notice requires specific evidence, not assumptions
- Albertsons v. Mohammadi: Owners need to have direct knowledge of the hazard, not just the possibility it could exist
- Austin v. Kroger: Reaffirmed open and obvious doctrine, but with clear exceptions
Texas courts have made it clear that the outcome of a slip and fall case depends on what the property owner knew, how the hazard developed, and whether they followed the safety standards required by law.
Why You Need a Lawyer for a Texas Slip and Fall Case
Texas law places the burden on the injured person to prove the property was unsafe, that the owner knew or should have known about the hazard, and that their inaction caused the fall. Meeting that burden requires more than just showing that you were hurt—it takes evidence, timing, and a clear understanding of how Texas slip and fall laws actually work.
An experienced Texas slip and fall attorney can take that pressure off your shoulders. From preserving evidence and uncovering what the property owner knew, to anticipating defenses like the “open and obvious” rule or proportionate responsibility, a strong legal strategy can be the difference between a denied claim and a successful one.
If you’ve been injured in a fall on someone else’s property, call Loewy Law Firm at (512) 280-0800. We understand how Texas slip and fall laws apply in real cases and how to build the strongest possible case under them.
The content on this website is for general informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice. Laws change, and case outcomes depend on specific facts. Viewing this material does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal guidance on your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.