Court Opinion

ID: 9673707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:16:35.795255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.669923
License: Public Domain

GREEN, Chief Justice
(concurring).
The applicable rules governing summary judgments for the defendant in “slip and fall” cases are set forth in Scott v. T. G. & Y. Stores, Tex.Civ.App., 433 S.W.2d 790, wr. ref. n. r. e. as follows:
“ * * * In order to be entitled to summary judgment pursuant to this motion the defendant had the negative burden of showing that plaintiffs had no cause of action against it. Kelty v. Travelers Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 391 S.W.2d 558, ref., n. r. e.; McGee v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App., 373 S.W.2d 773, ref., n. r. e.; Seale v. Muse, Tex.Civ. App., 352 S.W.2d 534, ref., n. r. e. That is to say, in this case, before it would be entitled to summary judgment on its motion, the defendant has the burden *94of showing that its employees did not put the liquid on the floor, that its employees did not know that the substance was on the floor and that the substance had not been on the floor for such a length of time and under such circumstances that a person of ordinary prudence in the exercise of ordinary care would have discovered and removed it. ‡ * * »
As held in Scott, the summary judgment evidence must exclude as a matter of law all of the three alternative routes that the plaintiff could have followed in raising a fact question as to defendant’s negligence. Appellee did not satisfy by summary judgment evidence these requirements as to the substance on the floor. Neither did it establish contributory negligence of plaintiff as a matter of law.
I concur in the order reversing and remanding the trial court’s judgment.
SHARPE, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the judgment of this Court which reverses the summary judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant-appel-lee and remands the case for trial. I agree with the statements contained in the separate opinion of Chief Justice GREEN.