Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that some dangerous conditions are less conspicuous than others, but all require proof of how long the hazard has been there
• recognizing that some dangerous conditions are less conspicuous than others, but all require proof of how long the hazard has been there
• holding that store’s policy to keep store free from hazards did not support constructive knowledge
• holding that the mere proximity of an employee to the site of an accident does not raise a fact issue regarding constructive notice of a dangerous condition
• finding no evidence that store knew of puddle based in part on uncontradicted testimony by only employee in the area
• finding evidence of Wal-Mart’s store policy that required employees to keep their assigned areas free from known hazard’s immaterial because there was no evidence that the hazard at issue was known

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).