Opinion ID: 30756
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Texas Law on Premises-Owner Liability.

Text: 10 As this case was removed to federal court under our diversity jurisdiction, we look to Texas law for the substantive standards defining Wal-Mart's duty of care to its customers. In Texas, a customer, such as Dixon, is an invitee. As such, business owners like Wal-Mart owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect her from dangerous conditions in the store known or discoverable to it. 7 Notably, this is a duty requiring only reasonable care by the business owner: Texas courts have repeatedly stated that businesses are not insurers of an invitee's safety. 8 Therefore, to prove premises liability on the part of a business owner, a plaintiff must show: 11
12
13 (3) the owner/operator did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and 14 (4) the owner/operator's failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. 9 15 In this case, Wal-Mart did not contest that the plastic binder on the floor constituted an unreasonable risk of harm or that Dixon was in fact injured in a trip and fall caused by this binder. Wal-Mart disputes only Dixon's allegation that it had constructive knowledge of the presence of the plastic binder on the floor. Therefore, the sole issue on appeal is whether Dixon established a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find that Wal-Mart had constructive knowledge of the plastic binder's presence on the floor. 16