Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez

968 S.W.2d 934 · Texas Supreme Court · 1998

Facts

Flora Gonzalez slipped and fell on macaroni salad in a Wal-Mart aisle, sustaining injuries. She sued Wal-Mart for negligence, and a jury awarded her damages, which the court of appeals affirmed. Wal-Mart appealed, arguing there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove it had constructive notice of the spilled macaroni.

Issue

What quantum of circumstantial evidence is legally sufficient to support a finding that an unreasonably dangerous condition existed long enough to charge a proprietor with constructive notice? Specifically, was the evidence regarding the macaroni salad's condition sufficient to establish Wal-Mart's constructive notice?

Holding

The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment for Wal-Mart, holding that the circumstantial evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish that the macaroni salad had been on the floor long enough to charge Wal-Mart with constructive notice.

Rule

When circumstantial evidence is relied upon to prove constructive notice, the evidence must establish that it is more likely than not that the dangerous condition existed long enough to give the proprietor a reasonable opportunity to discover it. Meager circumstantial evidence from which equally plausible but opposite inferences may be drawn is speculative and legally insufficient.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-08. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.