holding that a wet entryway - caused by customer foot traffic and windblown water may be an unreasonably dangerous -condition when there is evidence of past customers falling on a wet floor adjacent to the entryway and the store having procedures for handling, such occurrences
How later courts described this case
- holding that a wet entryway - caused by customer foot traffic and windblown water may be an unreasonably dangerous -condition when there is evidence of past customers falling on a wet floor adjacent to the entryway and the store having procedures for handling, such occurrences
- holding wet floor, caused by customer foot traffic and windblown water, may be an unreasonably dangerous condition
- holding that the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment if the evidence conclusively negates at least one essential element of the plaintiff's action
- holding that a wet floor just inside the grocery store’s entrance, despite that it had been raining, was not open and obvious as a matter of law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALKER, Justice
(concurring).
While I do not disagree with all that is said by Mr. Justice Steakley concerning the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, it is my opinion that we should consider and deal with the doctrine in the context of a case involving that defense. It is not involved in the present case. Assumption of the risk is not even pleaded as required by Rule 93, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. I concur in the judgment of reversal and remand, because the record does not establish conclusively that the condition of the floor was so open and obvious that petitioner should be charged as a matter of law with knowledge and appreciation of the danger.
GREENHILL, C. J, and POPE, Mc-GEE and DENTON, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.