April 8, 2025

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Premises Liability Standards: What Business Owners Need to Know

A closer look at Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi and its implications for business owners 

Picture this: A customer slips on a wet floor in your store. Are you automatically liable? Not necessarily. 

While business owners have a duty to protect customers from dangerous conditions, they’re not insurers of customer safety. For years, Texas courts have wrestled with determining exactly when a business owner should be held responsible for injuries that occur on their property. The recent Texas Supreme Court decision in Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi provides much-needed clarity on this issue.  

The Four Elements of Premises Liability 

Before diving into the case, let’s review what a plaintiff must prove to establish a premises liability claim in Texas: 

1. The owner/occupier had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition 
2. The condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm 
3. The owner/occupier didn’t exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk 
4. The owner/occupier’s failure to use such care proximately caused the injury 

Of these elements, the first—establishing the defendant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition—is typically the most contested. 

The Case: Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi 

The Facts 

Maryam Mohammadi worked at a bank inside a Randalls grocery store. One day, she slipped and fell after stepping in a puddle of water on the floor next to a shopping cart used by the store to hold returned or damaged goods. She filed suit, claiming that a leaking bag in the cart caused the puddle, and the store failed to warn her of this hazard. 

The store disputed that the floor was even wet. 

The Legal Journey 

At trial, the jury considered separate questions about the store’s constructive knowledge (whether they should have known) and actual knowledge (whether they did know) of the alleged danger. 

The jury found that Albertsons did not have constructive knowledge of the danger, and consequently didn’t answer the question regarding actual knowledge. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for the store. 

However, the 14th Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the jury should have considered actual knowledge even after finding no constructive knowledge. The appellate court reasoned that since there was evidence an employee knowingly placed a leaking grocery bag in the shopping cart, this constituted knowledge of the dangerous condition. 

The Supreme Court’s Analysis 

The Texas Supreme Court examined a crucial question: Is the premises owner’s knowledge of a leaking bag placed in a shopping cart evidence of the owner’s actual knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the fall?

The Court’s answer was clear: No. 

In its April 5, 2024 opinion, the Court emphasized: 

1. Actual knowledge requires specific evidence that the dangerous condition existed at the time of the accident. 
2. The relevant dangerous condition is the one at the time and place of injury (the wet floor), not the antecedent situation that may have created it (the leaking bag). 
3. The Court distinguished this case from Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., where a grape display was known to cause dangers on the floor beneath it. Unlike the grape display in Corbin, the shopping cart storage method used by Albertsons was not inherently dangerous from the moment it was used. 

What This Means for Business Owners 

The Albertsons decision has significant implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in premises liability cases: 

1. Narrower Scope of Liability: The Court has limited the situations in which a business can be found liable by narrowing the scope for establishing liability using broader or antecedent circumstances. 
2. Focus on Specific Conditions: Plaintiffs now must present clear and direct evidence of actual knowledge relating to the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury, not just knowledge of a situation that might have led to the dangerous condition. 
3. Importance of Policies and Practices: The Court emphasized that a company’s policies and practices are an important part of the liability analysis. This means business owners should: 
   1. Conduct periodic reviews of policies and procedures 
   2. Update them as necessary to ensure best practices are being followed 
   3. Document compliance with these policies 

Practical Takeaways 

So what should business owners do in light of this decision? 

1. Regular Inspections: Implement and document regular inspections of your premises. 
2. Prompt Response Protocols: Develop clear procedures for addressing spills or hazards as soon as they’re discovered. 
3. Staff Training: Ensure all employees understand the importance of identifying and addressing potential hazards immediately. 
4. Documentation: Keep records of inspections, maintenance, and any incidents that occur. 

Conclusion 

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi provides welcome clarity for business owners on the standards for premises liability. While this decision may make it more challenging for plaintiffs to establish liability, it doesn’t eliminate a business owner’s responsibility to maintain safe premises. 

Understanding the distinction between knowledge of a specific dangerous condition and knowledge of an antecedent situation is crucial for both defending against and preventing premises liability claims. By implementing proper policies and procedures, business owners can both protect their customers and minimize their legal exposure. 

Michael Q. Roos
Partner, Premises Liability
Kelley Kronenberg-Chicago, IL
983-999-4640
Email
Bio

Justin P. England
Partner, Premises Liability
Kelley Kronenberg-Chicago, IL
983-999-4640
Email
Bio

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Business owners should consult with a qualified attorney regarding their specific circumstances.