## Facts

- Maria Resendez slipped and fell in the produce section of an H.E. Butt Grocery Company store near two grape displays.
- One display contained grapes bagged in cellophane and placed in boxes.
- A second display was a customer sampling station with a bowl of loose grapes.
- The sampling bowl was level, recessed about five inches below the table surface, and sat on ice; each display table had a three-inch railing around its edges.
- The produce section floor was a non-skid surface; floor mats were placed around the display tables; warning cones were positioned near the grape displays.
- Resendez alleged the customer sampling display itself created an unreasonable risk of harm and caused her injuries.
- Resendez offered no additional evidence showing that the display’s configuration or operation created an unreasonable risk of customers slipping on grapes.

## Issues

1. Whether the mere presence of a customer sampling produce display, without additional evidence, can constitute a premises condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas (per curiam) granted review and decided the case without oral argument.
- The court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment that Resendez take nothing.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, the mere fact that a store has a customer sampling display cannot, without more, be evidence of a premises condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas slip-and-fall premises cases, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the premises owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition, (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) the owner failed to use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, and (4) the failure proximately caused the injury.
- A self-service or customer sampling display is not inherently an unreasonably dangerous condition; liability depends on evidence that the manner of display or surrounding circumstances created an unreasonable risk.
- A plaintiff bears the burden to produce evidence that the challenged condition was unreasonably dangerous; the existence of a produce display alone is insufficient.
- Prior authority finding potential liability for grape displays turned on evidence of a risky manner of display and inadequate protective measures, not on the general practice of displaying produce.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a theory that a customer sampling produce display, standing alone, permits an inference of an unreasonably dangerous condition, and it rendered a take-nothing judgment because the plaintiff produced no evidence that the display’s manner of operation created an unreasonable risk of harm.


H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez, 988 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1999)