Texas Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability in the Lone Star State

To win a slip and fall claim in Texas, you must prove the property owner was negligent, that they had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, and that their failure to remedy it caused your injury. Texas uses modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, and two key doctrines, the open-and-obvious bar and the natural-accumulation no-duty rule for ice and snow, can defeat a claim before it reaches the fault-apportionment stage.

Proving a slip and fall claim in Texas

Every Texas slip and fall case is a premises liability claim. To recover damages, you must establish four elements: the landowner owed you a duty of care, the property contained a dangerous condition, the owner had actual or constructive notice of that condition and failed to remedy it, and the failure was a proximate cause of your injuries.

Texas law divides visitors into invitees, licensees, and trespassers, and the duty owed differs for each. Invitees, those present by express or implied invitation for business purposes, such as grocery store customers, receive the highest duty: the owner must exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks. Licensees receive a lesser duty limited to warnings about conditions the owner actually knows about. Trespassers receive only the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct.

The notice element is critical and is contested in most premises liability cases. Actual notice means the owner or an employee knew about the specific hazard before you fell. Constructive notice means the condition existed long enough that a reasonable owner exercising ordinary care should have discovered and corrected it. Courts look at how long the condition was present, whether store employees were nearby, and whether maintenance logs or surveillance footage can establish the timeline. The Texas Supreme Court's framework in CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000), and Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P. (2015) governs the interplay between notice and the duty element in invitee cases.

The open-and-obvious doctrine in Texas

This is a duty bar in Texas, not a comparative-fault factor. If the hazard was open and obvious or already known to you, the owner may owe you no duty at all, and your claim can be defeated before any fault comparison takes place.

The Texas Supreme Court restored and clarified the no-duty rule in Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015). The court held that a landowner generally owes no duty to warn of or protect an invitee against premises conditions that are open and obvious or that the invitee already knows about. The rationale is that an invitee who is already aware of a risk can take precautions just as effectively as the owner, so imposing a duty adds no safety benefit.

The practical effect is significant. If a jury or judge finds that the hazard, whether a wet floor, a clearly visible curb, or a well-lit step, was open and obvious to a reasonable person in your position, the duty element fails and the claim ends. This is a stricter outcome than in states that treat open-and-obvious as a mere comparative-fault factor reducing your recovery.

Two narrow exceptions survive the no-duty rule. The criminal-activity exception applies where the owner's duty arises from the general duty to exercise ordinary care not to create an unreasonable risk of harm through criminal activity. The necessary-use exception applies where the invitee must use the dangerous area and has no reasonable alternative, even knowing of the risk, such as a worker who must traverse a slippery loading dock to do their job. These exceptions are construed narrowly by Texas courts. The Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed in HNMC, Inc. v. Chan (2024) that courts may not create new duties outside the recognized exceptions where the no-duty rule applies.

If you believe an exception applies to your situation, you need to affirmatively argue it. Simply showing that the owner was negligent is not enough if the hazard was open and obvious.

Ice, snow, and natural accumulation in Texas

Texas applies a no-duty rule for naturally accumulated ice, sleet, and snow. Falls on naturally occurring outdoor winter accumulation generally do not support a premises liability claim in Texas.

The Texas Supreme Court held in Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Fair, 310 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2010) that a natural accumulation of ice, sleet, or snow does not pose an unreasonable risk of harm as a matter of law. In that case, ice had formed naturally from a winter storm on an outdoor walkway, and the court found no premises liability duty required the hospital to remove it or warn about it. The court reasoned that imposing liability for purely natural accumulations would place too great a burden on Texas landowners, who cannot realistically combat all naturally occurring weather effects.

The key word is "natural." If the accumulation was created or significantly worsened by the owner's own conduct, the no-duty shield disappears. Examples of potentially "unnatural" accumulations include ice formed from a leaking roof drain that directed water onto a walkway, ice built up because a downspout drained onto a pedestrian path by design, or snow that drifted because of an owner-built structure that channeled wind. If you can show that the owner's construction, maintenance choices, or active negligence contributed to a more dangerous accumulation than natural weather alone would have created, the Scott & White no-duty rule does not protect the owner.

This means that Texas falls on outdoor ice or snow face a steep threshold. Consulting an attorney early to evaluate whether the accumulation was truly natural is important because the answer controls whether a duty existed at all.

How fault is shared: Texas's negligence rule

Texas uses the proportionate responsibility system under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 33, which is a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar.

Under Section 33.001, a plaintiff whose percentage of responsibility is greater than 50% recovers nothing. A plaintiff who is 50% or less at fault recovers damages reduced by their own fault share. For example, if a jury awards $80,000 in total damages but finds you were 30% responsible for your fall (perhaps because you ignored a warning sign), you recover $56,000. If the same jury found you 51% responsible, you recover zero.

Texas also has a joint-and-several liability provision. Under Section 33.013, a defendant found more than 50% responsible can be held jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment, not just their proportionate share. This is relevant when multiple defendants are involved, such as a store owner and a maintenance contractor, and one is insolvent.

Note that the proportionate responsibility framework only matters if you first survive the duty and open-and-obvious analyses described above. Both of those bars operate before the comparative-fault calculation even begins.

Deadlines: statute of limitations and government claims

The deadline to file a personal injury lawsuit in Texas, including slip and fall claims, is two years from the date the cause of action accrues, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.003(a). The clock generally starts on the date of the fall. Texas recognizes narrow tolling exceptions: the limitations period is tolled during the minority of an injured child (it starts running on their 18th birthday), and the discovery rule can apply in limited circumstances where the nature of the injury was inherently undiscoverable.

For more detail on how Texas's statutes of limitations work across case types, see the Texas statute of limitations page.

Falls on government-owned property require strict notice compliance before you can sue. The Texas Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 101.101(a), requires written notice to the responsible governmental unit within six months (180 days) of the incident. However, Section 101.101(b) expressly authorizes home-rule city charter provisions that impose shorter notice periods, and most major Texas cities do exactly that.

The City of Houston charter requires notice within 90 days. Other Texas cities impose notice periods ranging from 45 to 100 days. If you fell on property owned or maintained by a city, you need to identify the applicable notice deadline for that specific city immediately, because missing it waives your tort claim against that governmental unit. The 90-day figure cited here is Houston's requirement; it is not the statewide standard. Section 101.101(c) provides one narrow out: formal notice is excused if the governmental unit already had actual notice of the death, injury, or property damage. Missing the applicable notice deadline is a complete waiver; act fast.

What a Texas slip and fall claim is worth

A Texas slip and fall settlement or verdict can include economic damages (medical bills, future medical care, lost wages, loss of earning capacity) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of consortium). Texas does not cap non-economic damages in ordinary personal injury cases; the cap in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 74.301 applies only to health-care liability claims (medical malpractice), not premises liability.

Your recovery is reduced by your own percentage of fault under the proportionate responsibility system. At 51% or more fault, recovery is zero. Beyond comparative fault, the open-and-obvious and natural-accumulation bars discussed above can prevent recovery entirely if the duty element fails.

Cases involving fractures, traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, or lengthy surgeries and rehabilitation typically produce higher values. Cases with short recovery periods, pre-existing conditions, or where the hazard was arguably obvious carry lower values and greater risk of the claim being defeated at the duty stage.

Use the Texas slip and fall settlement calculator to model your potential damages before consulting an attorney. Return to the Slip and Fall Laws hub for comparisons across all 50 states.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Premises liability law varies by state and changes, and case values depend on the specific facts. For advice about a specific fall, consult a licensed attorney in Texas.

More Texas Laws

• Texas AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Texas Alimony Laws
• Texas At-Will Employment Laws
• Texas Car Accident Laws
• Texas Car Seat Laws
• Texas Child Support Laws
• Texas Common Law Marriage Laws
• Texas Data Privacy Laws
• Texas Dog Bite Laws
• Texas Emancipation Laws
• Texas Expungement Laws
• Texas Hit and Run Laws
• Texas Lemon Laws
• Texas Power of Attorney Laws
• Texas Recording Laws
• Texas Self-Defense Laws

Sources

• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 33 (Proportionate Responsibility)
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.003 (2-year personal injury statute of limitations)
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 101.101 (Texas Tort Claims Act, notice of claim)
• Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015) (open-and-obvious no-duty rule, narrow criminal-activity and necessary-use exceptions)
• Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Fair, 310 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2010) (natural accumulation of ice/snow not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law)
• CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (premises liability duty and notice framework)