Marla Shepherd v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, 12-20-00212-CV

On November 21, 2017, Marla Shepherd slipped and fell in the produce section of a Wal‑Mart Supercenter in Kilgore, Texas; she alleged she slipped in water and was injured.
Shepherd sued in August 2019 asserting premises‑liability negligence against Wal‑Mart for failing to keep the premises safe for invitees.
Wal‑Mart filed a no‑evidence motion for summary judgment on June 21, 2020 arguing Shepherd had no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the hazard.
Shepherd opposed, arguing (1) she had not had an adequate time for discovery because Wal‑Mart served interrogatory answers after filing the motion (disclosing 34 employees) and she wanted to depose two employees, and (2) video evidence showed an employee wiping the floor about two minutes before her fall, supporting notice.
The trial court heard the motion on August 20, 2020, granted Wal‑Mart’s no‑evidence summary judgment, denied Shepherd’s motion for new trial, and Shepherd appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequate time for discovery before a Rule 166a(i) no‑evidence MSJ	Discovery was inadequate: Wal‑Mart served witness IDs after filing MSJ and discovery period had two months left; she needed depositions	Plaintiff failed to file an affidavit or verified motion for continuance explaining need for more discovery	Trial court did not abuse discretion; discovery was adequate and continuance properly denied
Evidence of actual or constructive notice (premises liability)	Video shows an employee wiping the floor ~2 minutes before Shepherd fell, supporting actual/constructive knowledge	Video does not show substance, who created it, how long it existed, or that any employee knew of it	Video and other evidence fail to show how long hazard existed or that Wal‑Mart knew; no evidence of notice; no‑evidence MSJ affirmed

Martinez v. City of San Antonio, 40 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (factors for determining whether adequate time for discovery elapsed)
Tenneco Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (affidavit or verified motion required to obtain continuance for further discovery before summary judgment)
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (Rule 166a(i) no‑evidence MSJ is akin to a pretrial directed verdict)
Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (how appellate courts view evidence on summary judgment)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for when summary judgment should be sustained)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998) (elements and notice theories in premises‑liability claims)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (time‑notice rule requiring proof hazard existed long enough for proprietor to discover it)
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (elements required to prevail on premises‑liability claim)
Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. 2006) (absence of evidence on how long hazard existed defeats constructive notice)
Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983) (duty to take reasonably prudent action when proprietor has notice)