Скачать или смотреть Walmart v. Gonzalez (1998) - Premises Liability

FACTS:
Mrs. Gonzalez slipped in a Walmart store in Texas. She claimed Walmart failed to keep its premises safe for customers. Walmart argued there was no proof how long the spill had been there, and therefore no evidence they should have known about it.

ISSUE:
Was Walmart negligent for not discovering and cleaning the spill before the accident occurred?

HOLDING:
The court ruled for Walmart. Gonzalez could not prove how long the spill had been on the floor, so Walmart did not have constructive notice of the hazard.

REASONING:
1. To hold a store liable, there must be proof that employees knew or should have known of the danger.
2. Without evidence of how long the liquid was on the floor, the jury cannot infer negligence.
3. The law requires reasonable notice, not perfection.

TAKEAWAY:
Even if a customer gets hurt, a store is not automatically at fault. In negligence cases, timing and evidence matter as much as injury.

Watch my next legal case story! IR v. JQ (Germany 2018)
   • IR v. JQ (Germany 2018) - #employmentlaw #...  

#lawforeveryone #lawmadesimple #walmart #legalstorytime #legaleducation #lawschooladvice #lawschoolprep #slipandfall #negligencelaw