Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. App. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. App. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kyle Kilway v. Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc.
Tex. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Moreover, Kilway’s contention that “common sense tells us that green slime takes days or even weeks to form” is not probative evidence that Taylor Morrison had 14 constructive notice of the “slime.” See Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reyes v. Fiesta Mart, LLC
S.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Texas courts have held “that an owner or occupier has sufficient knowledge of a condition to be liable for the injuries caused by the condition if the plaintiff proves the defendant: ‘(1) put the foreign substance on the floor; or (2) knew that it was on the floor and negligently failed to remove it; or (3) that the foreign substance was on the floor so long that it should have been discovered and removed in the exercise of ordinary care.’ ” Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 265 (quoting Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 560 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (numbers added)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dukes v. Fiesta Mart, LLC
S.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Keetch, 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex. 1992) (citing Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 560 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1980, writ ref?d n.r.e.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brookshire Food Stores, L.L.C. v. Allen
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex.1992) (quoting Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 560 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); Wright v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 73 S.W.3d 552, 554 *901 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brookshire Food Stores, L.L.C. v. Katherine Allen
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Keetch v. Kroger Co. , 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex. 1992) (quoting Robledo v. Kroger Co. , 597 S.W.2d 560, 560 (Tex. Civ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece (2×)
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Generally, the plaintiff establishes constructive knowledge with evidence “that the foreign substance was on the floor so long that it should have been discovered and removed in the exercise of ordinary care.” Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex.1992) (quoting Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 560 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.)); accord Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tinsley, 998 S.W.2d 664, 667 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. denied). 1 Accordingly, Texas courts have held the evidence insufficient to establish constructive knowledge when the record contained …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez (2×)
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
On the other hand, cart tracks in water were not sufficient evidence to establish that the water had been there a sufficient time to give the store constructive notice in Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Tex.Civ.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Keetch v. Kroger Co. (6×)
Tex. · 1992 · confidence medium
Robledo v. Kroger Co., 597 S.W.2d 560, 560 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1980, writ refd n.r.e.) (numbers added); see also cases cited in note 3, supra. Keetch relies on the first of the three alternatives.
cited Cited "see" H.E. Butt Grocery Company v. Juan Rivera
Tex. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robledo v. Kroger Co. , 597 S.W.2d 560, 561 (Tex. Civ.
discussed Cited "see" Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robledo, 597 S.W.2d at 561 (holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water “had been there for some time” because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there); Roberson, 570 S.W.2d at 589 (rejecting the assertion of plaintiff — who had been in the store for only ten to fifteen minutes when he fell — that the substance on which he slipped had been there for thirty to forty minutes, stating that “[h]is opinion as to the length of time that it had been there amounts to nothing more than…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dolores ROBLEDO, Appellant,
v.
the KROGER COMPANY, Appellee
5418.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Apr 3, 1980.
597 S.W.2d 560
William H. Berry, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant., Abraham Moss, Law Offices of Guy H. Allison, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
McCLOUD.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
McCLOUD, Chief Justice.

Dolores Robledo sued the Kroger Company seeking damages for injuries sustained when she slipped on a foreign substance in a Kroger Store. The trial court entered judgment for Kroger notwithstanding a jury verdict in favor of Robledo. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

To recover, plaintiff must prove that defendant put the foreign substance on the floor; or knew that it was on the floor and negligently failed to remove it; or that the foreign substance was on the floor so long that it should have been discovered and removed in the exercise of ordinary care. Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc., 334 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1960, writ ref’d). Plaintiff concedes there is no evidence that defendant put the foreign substance on the floor or knew that it was there. She argues, however, the jury could properly infer from circumstantial evidence that the substance, water, had been on the floor a sufficient period of time to have been discovered and removed. Defendant urges that there is no evidence to support the jury finding that the substance was on the floor long enough to charge Kroger with constructive notice of its presence. We agree with defendant.

Plaintiff testified that she entered the store on a dry sunny day and almost immediately slipped and fell in an area of dirty water. Brigidio Perez III testified that he saw plaintiff slip and fall in a puddle of dirty water, measuring three feet by three feet. There was testimony that cart tracks were visible in the water. Plaintiff’s witnesses admitted that they did not know how long the water had been there.

There is no evidence from which the jury could infer how long the water had been on the floor. H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Pena, 592 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1980, no writ); Kimbell, Inc. v. Blount, 562 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1978, no writ); Sherwood v. Medical & Surgical Group, Inc., supra.

[*561] In Kimbell, Inc. v. Roberson, 570 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, no writ), the court said:

Plaintiff argues that his testimony showing that 2 or 3 other grocery carts had made tracks through the substance constitutes some evidence tending to show the substance had been on the floor for a length of time sufficient to give defendant constructive notice and demonstrates that it had been there for a sufficient length of time to have been discovered and removed by the exercise of ordinary care. We do not agree. It is just as likely that the tracks were made by customers traversing the aisle only minutes or even seconds before plaintiff’s fall. We fail to see how the mere presence of grocery cart tracks, standing alone, would constitute competent evidence tending to show the length of time a food item has been on the floor. See Kimbell, Inc. v. Blount, 562 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1978, no writ history); Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Arellano, 492 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1973, writ ref’d n.r. e.).

Plaintiff relies on several cases which are distinguishable. In Rosas v. Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534 (Tex.1975) and H. E. Butt Grocery Company v. Lucille Hawkins, 594 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi, 1979), the incidents occurred on rainy days when the defendants were well aware that water was being blown and tracked into their stores.

In H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Heaton, 547 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1977, no writ), there was evidence that grapes were smashed and spread out on the floor. They were drying out and the same layer of dirt covering the floor also covered the grapes. The court held this was sufficient under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1995, § 9a to maintain suit in the county where the act occurred. There is no comparable evidence in this case.

In J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Tripplett, 530 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.), plaintiff presented a “water evaporation specialist” who testified, on the basis of a hypothetical question, that the foreign substance had been on the floor 28.8 minutes. There is no comparable evidence in this case.

Plaintiff urges that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s objection to witness Perez’s statement that the water “had been there for some time.” This was not error. The evidence shows that Perez entered the store after the plaintiff and had no actual knowledge as to how long the water had been on the floor. His mere conclusion would not have been evidence of probative force. Kimbell, Inc. v. Roberson, supra.

In view of our holding, it is not necessary to consider plaintiff’s other points of error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.