# Rosas v. Buddies Food Store

> Texas Supreme Court · January 8, 1975 · 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 163

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672030

## Case

- **Full name:** Isias ROSAS, Petitioner, v. BUDDIES FOOD STORE, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 8, 1975
- **Citations:** 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 163; 518 S.W.2d 534; 1975 Tex. LEXIS 200
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Walker
- **Judges:** Steakley, Walker, Greenhill, Pope, McGee, Denton
- **Cited by:** 367 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672030

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that a wet floor on a rainy day just inside the grocery store’s entrance was not an open and obvious condition

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672030. Public record. Not legal advice.