Pamela McCarty v. Hillstone Restaurant Grou
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12936
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 16, 2014, Mrs. McCarty (on crutches after heel surgery) slipped walking past the kitchen/restrooms at Houston’s restaurant, operated by Hillstone; plaintiffs allege a substance on the floor caused the slip.
- Case proceeded in federal court under diversity jurisdiction; district court granted summary judgment for Hillstone; McCartys appealed.
- Texas premises-liability claim: plaintiff must prove owner had actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition (or placed it), condition posed unreasonable risk, owner failed to exercise reasonable care, and proximate causation.
- Three recognized proof methods (Reece): (1) owner placed substance; (2) owner actually knew of it; or (3) substance existed long enough for owner to discover (constructive knowledge).
- The record contained only speculative evidence that employees might have tracked or spilled something, a corrected employee statement denying seeing debris, and no evidence addressing how long any substance was present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hillstone placed the substance on the floor | McCartys argue employees frequently crossed the area and could have tracked or spilled material | Hillstone points to lack of direct evidence tying employees to placing the substance; evidence is speculative | Court: Plaintiff’s evidence only raises suspicion, not a genuine fact issue; no proof Hillstone placed it |
| Whether Hillstone actually knew of the substance | McCartys rely on an initial written employee statement (allegedly noting debris) | Hillstone notes employee corrected statement before deposition to say he did not see any substance; no other testimony of actual knowledge | Court: No evidence of actual knowledge; corrected statement shows no knowledge |
| Whether condition existed long enough for constructive notice | McCartys argue circumstantial factors could support inference of duration | Hillstone emphasizes absence of any temporal evidence (no antecedent event, no puddle size, no timestamps) | Court: Without evidence of duration, cannot infer constructive knowledge; summary judgment proper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate overall | McCartys contend genuine issues of material fact exist on notice element | Hillstone contends plaintiffs failed to produce evidence on any notice theory | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Hillstone — McCartys failed to show actual or constructive knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (sets out three proofs for notice/knowledge in slip-and-fall cases)
- Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (outlines premises-owner duty and elements of invitee claim)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998) (circumstantial evidence must support reasonable inference of notice)
- Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2016) (an inference is unreasonable if based on mere suspicion)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (constructive knowledge requires proof condition existed long enough to be discovered by reasonable inspection)