While shopping in the toy aisle of an H-E-B store, Marissa Peterson slipped on a clear liquid puddle and fell, afterward noticing a puddle six or seven inches wide and water dripping from a ceiling rafter above it, and she had "no idea" how long it had been there.¹ It had rained earlier that day and the manager identified the source as "rain" on the incident report but saw no leak, HEB conducted heightened inspections during rainstorms, and in the year before the fall the store had numerous leaks from a remodeling project, concentrated in the southern part of the store and not near the toy aisle.² Peterson also offered video showing the rain had stopped two hours earlier and that no HEB employee had walked the aisle in that time.³

Peterson sued HEB for premises liability, HEB moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment on its lack of actual or constructive knowledge after the trial court excluded her expert's report, and the trial court granted it.¹ The court of appeals reversed for the second time, concluding that earlier roof leaks in the store need not be in the area of a puddle to support constructive knowledge and that the trial court partly erred in excluding her expert's testimony.² The Supreme Court heard argument on December 3, 2025,³ and on April 10, 2026 reversed and reinstated the summary judgment.⁴

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg); argued December 3, 2025; opinion by Justice Bland issued April 10, 2026.⁵

• HEB:¹ whether the court of appeals erred in holding that prior roof leaks in other areas of a store provided constructive knowledge of a puddle where no leak had previously occurred, and whether it erred in holding the trial court wrongly excluded opinions of Peterson's expert.
• Peterson:² whether the court of appeals correctly weighed all the temporal evidence, including the store's history of leaks and its post-rain inspection protocols, in finding a fact issue on constructive knowledge.

Summary judgment is reviewed de novo, a no-evidence movant must show there is no evidence of an essential element, and evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.¹

Whether HEB had constructive knowledge of the puddle.

HEB (Petitioner): Without the excluded expert's "drip test" opinions, there is no probative evidence that water existed in the toy aisle long enough to infer HEB's knowledge, or that a roof leak ever existed over that area, so the court of appeals wrongly held that prior leaks in other areas support constructive knowledge.¹

Marissa Peterson (Respondent): HEB was on notice that any time it rained there could be a roof leak anywhere in the store, given its extensive history of leaks and its inspection protocols, and the court of appeals properly considered all the evidence of constructive knowledge in a fact-intensive review.²

HEB argued that the court of appeals dispensed with the vicinity requirement for roof-leak evidence that this Court recognized in City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, and Peterson responded that there was no basis to review its fact-intensive ruling.¹

• No leaks elsewhere. Asked if any of the 170 leaks were outside the identified areas, HEB's counsel answered "Zero": the record shows nothing beyond that area. (Oral Argument, 0:06:24)
• Protocol shows knowledge. Peterson's counsel said HEB's rain protocol, with cones, extra mats and a walkthrough, shows it knew the roof was a widespread problem, so it would not discourage precautions. (Oral Argument, 0:25:13; 0:26:13)
• First leak in the aisle. Asked if this could have been the very first leak in the toy aisle, HEB's counsel said yes. (Oral Argument, 0:12:54)
• Two hours. Peterson's counsel said it stopped raining at 7:30 and Mrs. Peterson fell around 9:30, so the puddle was not a thirty-second condition. (Oral Argument, 0:38:01)
• Fixed leak hypothetical. Asked about a leak completely fixed that recurs six months later, HEB's counsel said there would be no obligation. (Oral Argument, 0:19:02)
• Football field. HEB's counsel said the store is a football field, 60,000 square feet, so leaks on one yard line do not give notice of another. (Oral Argument, 0:15:50)
• Gap in repair records. Asked whether any of 1,500 pages of repairs followed this rainfall, Peterson's counsel said the records are monthly, with a gap before the fall. (Oral Argument, 0:41:01)

None noted

Holding

A party responding to a no-evidence summary-judgment motion in a slip-and-fall case must adduce some evidence of how long the dangerous condition existed to raise a fact issue on constructive notice, and earlier roof leaks elsewhere in the store do not do so.¹

Reasoning

Because Peterson conceded no evidence of actual knowledge, she had to show it was more likely than not the condition existed long enough to give HEB a reasonable opportunity to discover it, which turns on the condition's longevity, the owner's proximity and its conspicuity.² Under City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, a leaky roof is not itself a dangerous condition and roof-leak evidence supports constructive knowledge only if the leak is in the vicinity of the liquid, so older, repaired leaks elsewhere in the store do not show knowledge of this puddle at the time and place of the injury.³ Her other evidence, that the rain ended two hours earlier, that water dripped from a rafter, the puddle's size and HEB's inspection protocol, speaks to causes or possibilities and not to how long the puddle was on the floor, and an internal policy does not set a higher standard of care.⁴

Disposition

Court of appeals' judgment reversed and the trial court's summary judgment reinstated.⁵

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Justice Bland

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

De novo review of summary judgment on the premises-liability element of constructive knowledge.¹

Justice Bland delivered the opinion of the Court, with no separate writings.¹