What evidence can prove Walmart had constructive notice of a spill in Texas?

The hard part of this question is the word “before.” You may have photographs of the water, an incident report and medical records showing a serious injury. None of those necessarily explains what was happening on the floor before you fell.

A constructive-notice claim turns on that earlier stretch of time, so that is where the digging starts. Two Texas Supreme Court decisions show why, and after them comes a list of records worth tracking down. Other parts of a premises-liability claim are covered in the Walmart knowledge hub.

An employee nearby: the problem in Spates

Kathy Spates was shopping in the soft-drink aisle when her toe and sandal caught in an empty plastic six-pack ring. She went down on one knee and injured her shoulder. The ring lay three to five feet behind a Walmart employee who was working on the shelves. Spates testified that nobody else had been in the aisle for at least thirty to forty-five seconds.

It is easy to see why a customer would think those facts were enough. An employee was right there. But “right there” describes distance, and the Texas Supreme Court also needed evidence about time. The court found the proof of constructive knowledge insufficient.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Spates, 186 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2006), applies the analysis from Reece: proximity, conspicuity and longevity. Those factors belong together. The ruling does not establish that thirty seconds, forty-five seconds or any other fixed interval is always too short. It addresses the proof in that case.

A roof leak still needs a timeline

H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026), involved a puddle whose age the evidence could not establish. Roof leaks had occurred elsewhere. There was also a gap in inspections. Neither supplied the missing proof of how long the water at the accident site had been present. The Supreme Court reinstated judgment for H-E-B.

Working from a witness’s recollection

Say another shopper remembers seeing water in that aisle earlier. Their receipt shows when they paid, not when they walked past the spill. It helps only if they can put that moment somewhere in their trip, such as before or after they picked up something two aisles over.

Write a time estimate down exactly as the witness gives it, including any “maybe” or “about.” Store video has the same problem in a different form. When the first frame of a clip already shows the liquid, the clip proves the liquid was there at that point and says nothing about earlier. Footage that starts sooner, and possibly angles from nearby cameras, would be needed to see it arrive.

Footage of the fall may tell you little about how long the spill was there. Review the same patch of floor in the minutes before the fall. Look for employees walking by, someone stocking or mopping nearby, and shoppers pushing carts through. Record the camera and timestamp for any frame that may show when the liquid appeared. Another reviewer can then find that moment in the recording.

An inspection entry needs an explanation

A name and a timestamp may refer to an assigned task, a completed check or a later submission. Find out which, and identify the area actually checked. Compare those entries with the video and other records before placing them on a single chronology.

Where photographs fit

Take a close-up, if it can be done safely, but also show the approach to the spill. A close-up can make a patch of clear liquid look obvious because the viewer already knows where to look. A wider photograph may show glare, a display blocking the view, or the distance from an employee's position.

Photos like these go to how visible the spill was. On their own, they don’t tell you how old it is. Footprints and cart tracks work the same way. A puddle with tracks through it may look like it sat there a while, but someone has to back that up. The photo doesn’t prove it by itself.

Bring the originals to counsel, with an explanation of where each time came from. The review needs a supported interval and evidence of the opportunity to discover the hazard during it.

If the investigation instead finds that an employee had already been told about this spill, actual notice becomes relevant. That changes the knowledge inquiry, though it does not dispense with the need to establish the remaining elements of liability.

For the broader litigation process, read How to Litigate a Walmart Injury Case in Texas.

This is general information about Texas law, not advice for a particular case. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines, available evidence and the applicable legal duties depend on the facts.