Lara v. Quiktrip Corporation, 3:22-cv-01923

Background

On July 21, 2020, Martha Lara slipped on water in the women’s restroom of a QuikTrip in Garland, Texas, injuring her back and right arm.
Lara sued QuikTrip Corporation, QuikTrip West, LLC, Al-Madinah Petroleum, Inc., and an individual (T.J.), alleging failure to warn or timely remedy the wet floor.
Lara admitted no employees were present at the time and that she saw the wet floor before falling; she also admitted she did not know how long the water had been there.
Defendants submitted surveillance screenshots showing yellow wet-floor warning signs placed directly outside the bathroom.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; Lara did not file a response. The court required the movants to meet Celotex burdens despite the motion being unopposed.
The court found Lara failed to produce evidence on essential premises-liability elements (notice/temporal evidence and failure to warn) and granted summary judgment for Defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Viability of negligent-activity claim vs premises liability	Lara asserted negligent activity caused injury	Defendants said injury stemmed from a premises condition, not contemporaneous activity	Court: negligent-activity claim fails as matter of law; premises-liability framework applies
Proper defendants	Lara sued multiple entities (QT, QuikTrip West, Al-Madinah, T.J.)	Defendants argued only QT operated/controlled the restroom (others not proper)	Court: defendants offered no evidentiary support to remove parties; all defendants remain proper for pleading purposes
Elements of premises liability (risk, notice, failure to protect, proximate cause)	Lara: wet floor created unreasonable risk; defendants knew/should have known and failed to warn/cure	Defendants: Lara saw the wet floor (open & obvious), no evidence defendants had actual or constructive notice, and warning signs were present	Court: Lara failed to prove notice or contest length-of-time evidence and offered no proof defendants failed to warn; summary judgment for defendants
Summary-judgment procedure when motion unopposed	Lara did not respond	Defendants moved and supplied evidence; argued no genuine issue of material fact	Court: movants met Celotex burden; unopposed status did not alone decide motion; Lara failed to controvert; motion granted

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment and shifting burden to nonmovant)
Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2010) (unopposed summary-judgment motions not automatically granted)
Thomas v. Barton Lodge II, Ltd., 17 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 1994) (movant may show absence of evidence on an element)
Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2017) (no-evidence motion must do more than conclusory statements)
Vedol v. Jacobs Ent., Inc., [citation="436 F. App'x 409"] (5th Cir. 2011) (nonmovant must designate specific facts to show genuine issue)
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishing premises liability from negligent activity)
H.E.B. Grocery v. Warner, 845 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. 1992) (same premises-liability principle)
Fort Brown Villas III Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. 2009) (elements of premises-liability claim)
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (constructive knowledge requires condition exist long enough to be discovered)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998) (constructive notice and temporal evidence requirement)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (plaintiff cannot prove constructive notice absent temporal evidence)
Coastal Marine Serv. of Tex., Inc. v. Lawrence, 988 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1999) (duty to warn limited to concealed hazards owner knows or should know)
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire, 814 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. 1991) (no duty to warn for risks within ordinary community knowledge)
Hirabayashi v. N. Main Bar-B-Q, Inc., 977 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998) (no duty to warn for open-and-obvious hazards)
Bill’s Dollar Store, Inc. v. Bean, 77 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (conceded hazards do not give rise to duty to warn)