Minjarez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Tex., LLC
363 F. Supp. 3d 763
W.D. Tex.2019Background
- On June 21, 2017 Maria Dolores Minjarez slipped on a loose grape in the produce aisle of a Wal‑Mart in El Paso and sustained head, neck, back, and hip injuries; she was transported by ambulance and received subsequent medical care.
- Plaintiff sued Wal‑Mart Stores, Texas, LLC and Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. for premises liability and negligence. Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment.
- Wal‑Mart argued lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the grape, lack of proximate cause for the claimed injuries, insufficient proof of lost earnings, and that ordinary negligence cannot be pleaded separately from premises liability absent affirmative contemporaneous conduct.
- Minjarez relied on Wal‑Mart store policies that (1) recognize elevated risk from loose fruit and (2) direct employees to place mats and perform hourly safety sweeps; she argued these policies and the absence of mats/supportive conduct create circumstantial evidence of notice and that medical records link her injuries to the fall.
- The court denied summary judgment on the premises‑liability claim and on lost‑earnings/earning‑capacity damages, concluding factual disputes exist as to Wal‑Mart’s notice and proximate cause; the court granted summary judgment on the separate ordinary negligence claim as duplicative of the premises theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous grape/display | Wal‑Mart’s written safety policy acknowledging risk from loose fruit and requiring mats and safety sweeps supports inference Wal‑Mart knew grape displays posed elevated risk and failed to follow policy | No direct evidence Wal‑Mart knew of the specific grape or created the condition; plaintiff cannot show how long the grape was on the floor | Denied summary judgment on knowledge: a jury could infer notice from Wal‑Mart’s policies and the nature of self‑service grape displays (Corbin analog) |
| Proximate cause between fall and claimed injuries | Medical records and treatment following the incident support that the fall was a substantial factor in plaintiff’s injuries | Plaintiff’s injuries may stem from a 2016 vehicular accident; insufficient proof tying injuries to the Wal‑Mart fall | Denied summary judgment on proximate cause: disputes of fact exist whether the fall substantially caused the injuries |
| Whether plaintiff may assert an ordinary (general) negligence claim separate from premises liability | Wal‑Mart employees’ alleged failure to train, perform safety sweeps, place mats, and supervise supports ordinary negligence based on affirmative conduct/omissions | Texas law requires affirmative contemporaneous conduct to pursue an ordinary negligence theory; here the claim arises from a premises condition | Granted summary judgment on ordinary negligence: claim is duplicative and must proceed as premises liability (nonfeasance) |
| Lost earnings and loss of earning capacity damages | Plaintiff testified she left work and later left a second job because of pain from the incident; absence of a physician’s work restriction is not dispositive | Wal‑Mart points to lack of medical directive and limited evidentiary support for lost wages | Denied summary judgment on damages: sufficient evidence raises triable issue on lost earnings/earning capacity |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983) (store’s acknowledgment of grape‑display risk and missing mats supported jury inference of notice)
- Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. 2006) (analysis distinguishing dangerous condition of an appliance/display from store’s care measures; use of mats speaks to care, not necessarily to an inherently dangerous device)
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishes premises‑liability and negligence theories; duties owed to invitees)
- W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2005) (summary of premises‑liability principles and elements)
- United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. 2017) (negligence/premises distinctions and standards for causation)