some condition on the premises by the owner/operator; (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) that the owner/operator did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) that the owner/operator's failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Keetch v. Kroger 845 S.W.2d 262. (Tex. 1992) …show more content…
Furthermore, the fourth element also coincides with this principle; there was failure to clearly signal the probable risk the water may cause and by failing to do so Ms. Pedroza was subject to severe injury. The elements in question are the first and second. Clearly defining what constructive knowledge means in the scope of the potential case at hand. Also, defining unreasonable risk of harm is important to fully clarify the second …show more content…
v. Sparkman, the plaintiff sued the defendant for a slip-and-fall case. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sparkman, 2014 WL 6997166, at 3 (Tex. App. 2014). It was a rainy day and the entranceway was potentially slippery due to the amount of water coming in from the rain, or the water that people brought in by customers walking in. Id. The employees used the incorrect mop, a mop that did not properly soak up the water. The employee left the entrance for fifteen minutes and in that gap Sparkman suffered injury by slipping while walking though the entrance. Id. The court held that “the jury was free to believe that in the roughly fifteen minutes between when the employee mopped the floor and when Sparkman fell, a reasonable inspection of the employee's work would have revealed that she had not remedied the dangerous condition.”