Seigler v. Wal-Mart Stores TX, 30f4th472

On January 25, 2018, Maria Seigler slipped and fell in front of the deli "hot case" at a Walmart Supercenter in Weatherford, Texas, alleging she slipped on chicken grease or a similar greasy substance.
At deposition Seigler described a "greasy liquid," "yellowish" in color, that got on her shoe but said she had no personal knowledge or evidence of how long it had been on the floor.
Wal‑Mart employees testified the substance appeared to be chicken grease/oily substance and that rotisserie chickens were kept on a heated shelf (hot case) near where Seigler fell; at least one employee was working the deli at the time.
Seigler submitted an affidavit describing the residue as yellowish‑brown, cold, congealed, and thickened (indicating it had cooled), which Wal‑Mart moved to strike as a sham affidavit.
The district court excluded the affidavit under the sham‑affidavit doctrine and granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment, holding Seigler failed to raise a fact issue as to constructive knowledge.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the affidavit was not inherently inconsistent with the deposition and that the affidavit could create a genuine fact issue on constructive notice; the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly excluded Seigler’s affidavit under the sham‑affidavit doctrine	Seigler: affidavit supplements deposition and is reconcilable with prior statements (not an inherent contradiction)	Wal‑Mart: affidavit contradicts deposition and offers new, unexplained testimony to defeat summary judgment	Reversed: affidavit not inherently inconsistent; district court abused discretion excluding it
Whether Wal‑Mart was entitled to summary judgment on constructive notice under Texas premises‑liability law	Seigler: congealed, cold grease next to hot case permits reasonable inference it spilled hot and had time to cool → constructive knowledge	Wal‑Mart: no evidence grease spilled from hot case; other explanations possible, proximity alone insufficient	Reversed: evidence of changed condition and proximity creates genuine dispute on longevity → summary judgment improper

Kennett‑Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1980) (affidavits should not be disregarded simply because they conflict to some degree with earlier deposition).
S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 1996) (articulates sham‑affidavit doctrine: affidavits that impeach prior sworn testimony without explanation may be disregarded).
Winzer v. Kaufman Cty., 916 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2019) (high bar for applying sham‑affidavit doctrine; discrepancies must be inherently inconsistent).
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (constructive notice requires proof the hazard existed long enough for owner to discover it).
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Spates, 186 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2006) (constructive‑notice analysis considers proximity, conspicuity, and longevity; proximity alone is insufficient).
Kroger Stores, Inc. v. Hernandez, 549 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977) (changed condition evidence—e.g., dried or congealed substance—can support a jury inference as to duration).
Kofahl v. Randall's Food & Drugs, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App. 2004) (testimony that a spill was tacky or starting to dry supports constructive‑notice inference).