Rosas v. Buddies Food Store - 518 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. 1975)

Rule:

Whether a condition constitutes a danger is a function of reasonableness. That is, if the ordinarily prudent man could foresee that harm was a likely result of a condition, then it is a danger.

Facts:

On a rainy afternoon, petitioner Isias Rosas entered respondent Buddies Food Store and slipped on a wet floor and fell. Petitioner sued respondent to recover for the personal injuries he sustained. Petitioner alleged that he was a business invitee, that the wet floor constituted a danger, that respondent knew of the danger, thus, respondent had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect its customers, but respondent breached its duty and caused his injuries. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court finding that the wet floor did not amount to a dangerous condition and that respondent owed no duty to petitioner and this has been affirmed by the civil court of appeals. Petitioner appealed.

Issue:

Was the dismissal of petitioner’s action for damages proper?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the decision which granted respondent’s summary judgment in petitioner’s suit. The court held that reasonable minds could differ as to the dangerous character of the wet floor in light of testimony that there had been previous falls due to wet floors and that respondent continually tried to prevent water accumulation by the entranceway. The court further held that the danger was not so open and obvious as to relieve respondent of any duty or to charge petitioner with knowledge and full appreciation of the nature and extent of the danger. Hence, the court remanded the case for trial.