HE Butt Grocery Company v. Resendez
Cases that cite this one
53 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor (Tex. 2006)
- Julia Knox v. Fiesta Mart, Inc (Tex. App. 2011)
- National Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Erevia (Tex. App. 2002)
- Juanita De Luna v. Buc-Ee's, Ltd. (Tex. App. 2024)
- National Convenience Stores Incorporates v. Angela Marie Erevia (Tex. App. 2002)
- Nevills v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co. (Tex. App. 2001)
- Brookshire Grocery Company, D/B/A Brookshire Food Stores v. Mary Francis Taylor (Tex. 2006)
- in the Matter of the Marriage of Ella Ruth Lee and Romeo Anderson Lee and in the Interest of Raven Romenique Lee and Malcolmnique Carol Lee, Children (Tex. App. 2005)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Diaz (Tex. App. 2003)
- Brookshire Food Stores, L.L.C. v. Allen (Tex. App. 2002)
- Brookshire Food Stores, L.L.C. v. Katherine Allen (Tex. App. 2002)
- Bowman v. Brookshire Grocery Co. (Tex. App. 2010)
- Dolores and Ronald Bowman v. Brookshire Grocery Company (Tex. App. 2010)
- Plainview Motels, Inc. v. Reynolds (Tex. App. 2003)
- Milchak v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (District Court, W.D. Texas 2025)
- INTHALANGSY v. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, L.L.C. (District Court, W.D. Texas 2020)
- Julieth Mendoza Hernandez v. Kroger Texas, L.P. (Tex. App. 2019)
- Roy Pipkin of the Estate on Behalf of Bayon Shea Pipkin v. Kroger Texas LP (Tex. App. 2012)
- Sunni S. Dietz v. Hill Country Restaurants, Inc. D/B/A Clear Spring Restaurant (Tex. App. 2011)
- Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc. (Conn. 2010)
- Dolores and Ronald Bowman v. Brookshire Grocery Company (Tex. App. 2010)
- Brookshire Grocery Company, D/B/A Brookshire Food Stores v. Mary Francis Taylor (Tex. 2006)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Selene Diaz (Tex. App. 2003)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Selene Diaz (Tex. App. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Can mere display of produce for customer sampling constitute an unreasonable risk of harm to customers? The court of appeals said yes. 1 We say no. We reverse the court of appeals judgment and render judgment that plaintiff take nothing.
While shopping at an H.E. Butt Grocery Company store, Maria Resendez slipped and fell near two grape displays. She sued HEB for negligence, alleging that the customer sampling display posed an unreasonable risk of harm that caused her injuries. The trial court rendered judgment on a jury verdict for Resendez. The court of appeals affirmed.
From the undisputed evidence, we know that HEB had two grape displays in its produce section. One display table contained grapes bagged in cellophane and sitting in boxes. The other display table contained a bowl of loose grapes for customer sampling. The customer sampling bowl was level, sitting on ice and recessed about five inches below the tables surface. Each display table had a three-inch railing around its edges. The floor of the entire produce section was a non-skid surface and floor mats were in place *219 around the display tables. There were also warning cones near the grape displays.
The court of appeals concluded that HEBs grape display, allowing for customer sampling, was some evidence of an unreasonable risk of harm to store customers. 2 As a matter of law, though, the mere fact that a store has a customer sampling display cannot, without more, be evidence of a condition on the premises that poses an unreasonable risk of harm.
For Resendez to recover from HEB, she had the burden to prove that (1) HEB had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises, (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) HEB did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or to eliminate the risk, and (4) HEBs failure to use such care proximately caused her injuries. 3
Resendez, like the plaintiff in Corbin, claims that HEBs customer sampling display resulted in an unreasonable risk of harm. 4 However, Resendez presented no evidence that the display created an unreasonable risk of customers falling on grapes. In Corbin, there was more evidence than the mere existence of a display. It was the manner in which Safeway displayed the grapes — in a slanted bin over a linoleum tile floor with no protective floor mat — that created an unreasonable risk of customer falls from grapes falling on the floor. 5 Here, there is no evidence that the manner of display created an unreasonable risk.
Accordingly, we grant HEBs petition for review, and without hearing oral argument, 6 reverse the court of appeals judgment and render judgment that Resendez take nothing.
. See Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983); see also Keetch v. Kroger, 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992).
. Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 296.
. See Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.