Gregory Sanchez v. Stripes LLC and Stripes Convenience Store, an Assumed or Common Name
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3679
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Gregory Sanchez, an invitee, entered a convenience store restroom; a yellow, free‑standing "WET FLOOR / PISO MOJADO" sign (~3 ft tall) was positioned in the short hallway entry outside the restroom.
- Surveillance video shows Sanchez walked around the visible sign into the hallway, saw an employee wet‑mopping, entered the men’s restroom, and less than two minutes later exited and slipped on a wet area a few feet from the sign.
- The employee had mopped the area where the sign had been, moved the sign a few feet while mopping, then returned the sign to its original location before Sanchez exited.
- Sanchez sued Stripes (store) for premises liability, alleging inadequate warning and failure to make the condition safe.
- Stripes moved for summary judgment on both traditional and no‑evidence grounds, arguing the warning was adequate and the danger was open and obvious; the trial court granted summary judgment without specifying a ground.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the warning was adequate as a matter of law under the totality of the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stripes provided an adequate warning of the dangerous condition | Sanchez: sign did not warn of the wet area he encountered because floor was dry when he entered and sign was at hallway entrance, not directly at restroom door; mopping later made the area wet after he passed the sign | Stripes: sign was visible and communicated ongoing mopping/wet floor; Sanchez saw employee mopping and the sign before entering, so warning was adequate | Warning was adequate as a matter of law; summary judgment for Stripes affirmed |
| Whether the condition was open and obvious (alternative defense) | Sanchez: argued danger was not obvious because floor became wet while he was inside restroom and he had no notice of the change | Stripes: asserted danger was open and obvious and Sanchez saw mopping activity and the sign | Court did not decide because adequate warning dispositive; did not reach open-and-obvious question |
| Whether summary judgment standard was met on traditional/no‑evidence grounds | Sanchez: disputed material facts (timing/location of mopping, sign purpose) raise fact issues for jury | Stripes: summary evidence conclusively negates an essential element (failure to warn) | Court found Stripes conclusively negated the failure‑to‑warn element under traditional summary judgment review |
| Whether property owners must warn with granular, minute‑by‑minute specificity | Sanchez (dissent): argued facts create doubt whether sign warned of a later changed condition; owner’s policy and placement raise issues | Stripes (majority): requiring square‑foot/minute warnings would exceed duty of ordinary, reasonable landowner | Majority: such granular warning not required; ordinary warning here sufficed as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (adequacy of warning evaluated under totality of circumstances; adequate warning negates negligence)
- Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015) (landowner may satisfy duty by providing adequate warning)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (elements of premises liability for invitees)
- TXI Operations, L.P. v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2009) (warning must notify of the particular dangerous condition)
- Golden Corral Corp. v. Trigg, 443 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014) (wet‑floor sign a sufficient warning a few feet from where plaintiff slipped)
- Brooks v. PRH Invs., Inc., 303 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (combination of wet‑floor sign, observed mopping, and verbal warning can be adequate)
- Bill’s Dollar Store, Inc. v. Bean, 77 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (customer warned to watch wet spot held adequate)