How to Prepare a La Michoacana Injury Case for Trial

A La Michoacana Meat Market injury case is ready for trial once three things are done: the company that really ran the store is named, the video and inspection logs are saved, and each element of the claim is tied to the hazard at the time and place of the fall. Most cases don't go to trial, but a claim built this way holds up when the store's lawyers, a judge, or a jury test it.

What a trial-ready claim needs	What the store may argue
The entity that operated the store and controlled the aisle, not just the name on the sign	You sued the wrong company.
Video, sweep logs, the incident report, and photos saved early	There's no record of the condition.
Proof of how long the puddle sat there, or that an employee knew before the fall	Nobody knew, and the spill appeared seconds earlier.
Facts about the condition itself and the precaution the store skipped	It was minor, or the customer should have seen it.
Medical records and qualified opinions linking the fall to each loss	The injuries came from something else, or the damages are excessive.

Who this guide is for	What to read
Injured shoppers and families	Sections 1 to 3 for first steps, then section 10 for how a lawyer weighs the claim.
Texas personal injury attorneys and litigation staff	Sections 4 to 11 for the elements, constructive notice, defenses, and the discovery plan.
Referring lawyers	Sections 5 and 10 for the notice standard and the written liability assessment.
Anyone evaluating counsel	Aaron Herbert is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, which is not a guarantee of any result.
Rule versions	Rules change. On November 2, 2026, the Texas Judicial Branch rules page listed the civil rules as amended October 1, 2026, the evidence rules with amendments effective July 2, 2026, and the appellate rules dated February 6, 2026. Check again before you rely on them.
About this guide	The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C. isn't affiliated with La Michoacana Meat Market, and every example is hypothetical.

Tell us about your La Michoacana injury or call (214) 200-4878. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Browse Texas La Michoacana Supermarket Injury Knowledge Hub

1. Identify the actual business and the responsible legal entities

Before analyzing the fall, find out which legal entity operated that store on the accident date, because the name on the sign may not be the company you sue.

Record to check	What it shows	Its limit
Street address, storefront name, and the legal name on the receipt	A lead on the operator	A clue, not proof of every relationship.
Secretary of State and assumed-name filings, permits, and licenses	Registered entities and their trade names	They don't show who controlled the aisle that day.
Appraisal district records and deeds	Who owns the real estate	Ownership isn't control of the interior.
Payroll and employment records, through discovery	Who employed the workers on shift	Usually available only after suit.
Leases and management, maintenance, cleaning, and service contracts	Who agreed to inspect, clean, or repair	Contract language may not settle the legal duty owed to an invitee.

The company's site describes a Houston business founded in 1986 with "about 140 stores" (undated page, viewed November 2, 2026), but that doesn't establish who ran a given Texas location; in a 2018 appeal the defendant was "LMMM Houston #41, Ltd., d/b/a La Michoacana Meat Market #41."

Potential party	Question to investigate	Evidence to seek
Store operator	Who ran the store and employed the staff?	Receipts, filings, and employee records.
Owner or landlord	Did it keep roof, structural, or maintenance duties?	Deed, lease, and amendments.
Management company	Did it supervise operations?	Management agreement and policies.
Cleaning or equipment contractor	Did it inspect floors or service the refrigerated case?	Contracts, schedules, and repair history.
A paleteria or independent store using the name	Is it a different business entirely?	Treat it as separate until records prove otherwise.

Name only parties with a good-faith factual and legal basis, document the source of each identification, and update the chart as records arrive. Suing the wrong entity can mean delay, motion practice, and limitations problems, as our article on choosing the correct La Michoacana defendant explains.

Control question	Why it matters
Who controlled and could inspect the accident area?	Duties usually follow control, and those employees are the notice witnesses.
Who had to correct the hazard, and who could authorize repairs or close the area?	It frames the reasonable-care element.
Who controlled the equipment or activity that created the condition?	It may point to a contractor or a different theory.

2. Conduct a structured initial client interview

The first interview starts the liability, causation, damages, and credibility investigation, and its job is to preserve what the client actually remembers without filling gaps with guesses.

Chronology question	Hypothetical answer
When did you arrive, why, and where did you shop first?	About 6:15 p.m., for dinner groceries, produce first.
Where exactly did you fall, and what were you doing?	In front of the meat counter, reading a price card.
Did you see the hazard before falling?	Only after, from the floor.
What hit the floor, and was it a full fall or a partial slip?	My right hip and wrist; I went all the way down.
Who saw it, was a report made, and where did you get care?	A shopper and the butcher; the manager wrote something down; urgent care.

Clients may be in pain, medicated, or unsure, so separate what they saw from what others said.

Statement type	Hypothetical example	Weight
Personal observation	"I saw clear liquid on the floor after I fell."	Firsthand testimony.
Witness statement	"Another shopper said it had been there several minutes."	Useful only if that shopper is found.
Inference	"An employee was nearby, so they must have known."	A conclusion needing other proof.

If the hazard was	Ask about
A spill	Color and look (clear, cloudy, oily), spread, debris, footprints or cart tracks, a possible source, a warning sign, and any cleaning.
A trip hazard	Merchandise, packaging, a pallet, or a mat, its visibility, the walking path, a related store activity, and lighting.
Falling merchandise	What fell, how it was stacked or hung, who touched it, and damaged shelves or other poorly placed items.
Any condition	Aisle, nearest fixture, refrigerated cases, direction of travel, employees, checkout, signs, cameras, and the floor before and after.

Use a marked store diagram, but don't ask the client to guess distances, and don't coach the client to call anything "unreasonably dangerous," which is a legal conclusion. For the first days, read what to do in the first 72 hours after a La Michoacana injury.

Medical history to collect	Why
Prior injuries, surgeries, imaging, or treatment for the same body part or similar symptoms	A prior condition doesn't defeat the claim, but it must be explained.
Chronic conditions, medications, and pre-accident limits	To show what changed after the fall.
Treatment since the fall, and any later accident or intervening event	To build the chronology and give realistic advice about what's known.

3. Investigate early and preserve the evidence

Preservation is one of the most time-sensitive parts of a supermarket case, because some video and records may be kept only briefly under ordinary business practices.

The preservation notice includes	Why
Name, date, approximate time, store address, aisle, condition, and general injury	So the store can find the right footage and records.
Surveillance, incident and investigation records, inspection and cleaning logs, maintenance records, and electronic data and communications	Each can bear on notice.
A copy of the notice and proof of delivery, kept by counsel	To prove when the store was told.

Keep the letter specific without guessing what the store has. A letter doesn't oblige a business to keep every item forever; consequences of loss depend on the circumstances and Texas law.

Video issue	What to do
Scope	Request footage from before the fall (duration, employees passing, customer reports, inspections, signs) and after (response and the area's condition), then narrow later discovery proportionally.
Native file and metadata	Get the original format and check camera-clock accuracy, export changes, conversions, dropped frames, gaps, and field of view.
Other cameras	Ask whether overlapping angles exist and were all produced.

Records and physical evidence	What they can and can't prove
Sweep sheets, electronic entries, timed inspection apps, checklists, schedules, spill reports, and work orders	Find the system used at that store that day; a corporate policy shows expectations, not what happened.
Photos of the substance, floor, lighting, signs, displays, refrigeration, drains, mats, merchandise, and footwear	Keep originals and note who took each, when, and any edits; later photos may not show the condition at the fall.

In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014), the grocer kept footage of the fall and a short span before it while other footage was recorded over. Read more in our guide to preserving La Michoacana surveillance video.

What Aldridge teaches	What counsel does
Video can be decisive when duration and employee activity are disputed	Preserve early and ask for full context.
The trial court decides whether spoliation occurred and the remedy; an instruction is reserved for intentional spoliation or negligent loss that irreparably deprived a party of a meaningful ability to present its case	Prove what was lost, when, who controlled it, and whether there was a duty to keep it, instead of threatening spoliation.
A shopper's memory can't show how long a spill sat there	Use video, inspection records, and employee testimony to fill the gap.

4. Choose the correct liability theory and prove each element

A supermarket injury isn't automatically a premises case, so identify the condition or conduct that caused it before choosing a cause of action.

How the injury happened	Theory it may implicate
Slipping on water, grease, meat residue, or food, or tripping on a pallet, mat, cord, or display	Premises liability for a condition.
An employee's affirmative conduct, like a pallet jack striking a shopper	Ordinary negligence; under Keetch v. Kroger Co., the injury must be a contemporaneous result of the activity itself.
A falling product or poorly secured display	Premises or negligent activity, depending on the facts.
A defective cart or equipment	Possible product liability.
A vehicle or traffic layout in the parking lot	Negligent operation, negligent supervision, or premises theories.

Plead only the theories you can support. When the Supreme Court restated the invitee elements in Peterson, it relied on cases such as Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992), and United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. 2017).

Invitee element	Evidence plan
Actual or constructive knowledge of the condition	Proof about that puddle or pallet, not that stores get slippery.
An unreasonable risk of harm	Physical facts about the condition.
Failure to use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk	A specific precaution not taken.
Proximate cause of the injury	Liability facts plus medical causation.

A store isn't an insurer, and a file heavy on medical records but light on notice, control, or the condition is exposed to summary judgment. Knowledge must concern the specific hazard: who placed the pallet and how long it stayed, or who loaded and inspected the display that fell.

Actual knowledge	Hypothetical example
An employee saw or created the condition	A stocker spilled ice and walked away.
A customer reported it first	A shopper told the butcher about water by the case.
A log, work order, text, or report flagged it	A message to the manager about a dripping cooler.
Video shows an employee seeing it	An employee glances at the puddle and keeps going.
A timing trap	A manager who finds the spill after the fall proves it existed then, not that anyone knew before.

In a hypothetical, a shopper warns a meat-department employee about water collecting by a refrigerated display, nothing is done, and another shopper slips minutes later; preserve the employee's identity, the time, the spot, and what followed. Our article on how store notice works in a La Michoacana fall goes deeper.

Constructive knowledge	What it means
The test	Whether it's more likely than not that the condition existed long enough to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to discover it (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812, 814-17 (Tex. 2002)).
The factors	Longevity, the owner's or agent's proximity, and conspicuity.
Its limit	It can't rest on speculation, a point Peterson sharpened on April 10, 2026.

5. Constructive notice after H-E-B, LP v. Peterson

H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026), sets the rule: to answer a no-evidence motion on constructive notice, the shopper needs some evidence of how long the condition was there at that spot and time.

Peterson at a glance	What the opinion says
Facts	A shopper slipped on a clear liquid puddle in a grocery store's toy aisle.
Result	The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the grocer.
Precedent applied	Reece, Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, and City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, which held that knowing a roof leaks isn't knowing of the puddle.
Rules note	A footnote says the 2026 Rule 166a amendments didn't apply because the motion was filed before March 1, 2026.

Peterson doesn't end spill claims, set a minimum number of minutes, or require time-stamped video. It requires some evidence that the particular condition existed long enough to be discovered.

Evidence offered	Why it fell short
Earlier roof leaks elsewhere in the store	Knowing of a water source must correlate to the condition at that time and place.
Rain had stopped about two hours earlier, and a drip from above	Both suggested a source, not how long water sat on the floor.
The puddle's size	Size alone didn't show how long it was there.
The store's inspection policy	It didn't show duration, and a policy doesn't create a higher standard of care.
Expert testimony	The Court didn't need to resolve the expert disputes because it didn't establish duration.

Aldridge shows the contrast: video there showed employees passing a grease spill in roughly the five minutes before the fall, which the Court treated as able to support constructive knowledge.

Aldridge	Peterson
Employee movements measured against the actual spill shortly before the fall	No evidence of how long the puddle existed or that an employee encountered it.
The La Michoacana question	Whether an employee was close enough to that hazard, at a relevant time, to have had a chance to find it.

Put the hazard on a timeline and mark which points are proven. A witness or recording that puts the spill there at 2:10 p.m. is a fact. Saying it showed up after the 1:45 p.m. cleaning only narrows the window.

Timeline question	Evidence to investigate
When was the area last seen safe?	Video, inspection records, and testimony.
When could the hazard first appear, and when was it seen?	Equipment, delivery, cleaning, and maintenance logs, reports, and photos.
Who was near it before the fall?	Surveillance, schedules, assignments, and witnesses.
Was it visible?	Lighting, floor color, the liquid's look, obstructions, and measurements.

Meat departments handle water, blood, meat juices, ice, and cleaners, but that alone doesn't prove notice of a hazard on a customer walkway; a recurring equipment problem matters only if it's tied to the condition at the relevant time and place.

Duration source	What to watch for
Surveillance	Keep the original file and surrounding footage, since a fall-only clip won't answer duration.
Witnesses and employees	Ask where they were, what they saw, for how long, and what task they were doing, not just their department.
Electronic inspection records	A completed checklist doesn't prove the inspection happened; test the process and foundation.
Refrigeration alarms, temperature logs, and leak and repair records	They must be tied to that spot and hazard.
Photos, residue, footprints, cart tracks, and reports	Size alone doesn't prove duration, and a post-fall report identifies the condition but not prior notice.

Proximity and conspicuity still count but can't replace duration for a transient condition; working in the meat department isn't being near the spill while it existed. If an employee created, saw, or was warned of the condition, consider actual knowledge or another supported theory, as covered in our La Michoacana notice article.

Proof matrix issue	Potential proof
Identity, creation time, and duration of the condition	Photos, video, testimony, the incident report, and logs.
Actual knowledge	Complaints, admissions, reports, and video.
Employee proximity and conspicuity	Video, schedules, lighting, contrast, and location.
Opportunity to discover, and the response	Duration, proximity, and conspicuity combined, plus cleanup records and warnings.
Causation	Plaintiff testimony, medical evidence, and admissible expert proof.
Gaps	If there's no duration evidence, say so and decide whether discovery, another supported theory, or a dispositive problem is the answer.

6. Prove the condition was unreasonably dangerous

The shopper must also show the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and a serious injury doesn't prove that.

Rule	Effect
Usually a fact question	Some conditions aren't unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
United Supermarkets, LLC v. McIntire, No. 21-0208 (Tex. June 17, 2022) (per curiam)	A divot in the parking lot, about three-quarters of an inch deep, wasn't unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law, even though the fall caused serious injury.
Injury severity	A fracture or surgery doesn't prove the condition itself, or the way customers met it, was dangerous.

A close-up photo after the fall can miss the lighting, the approach, and the liquid's visibility, so get images from the shopper's point of view.

Unreasonable-risk evidence	Hypothetical example
Size, depth, height, texture, surface, and location	A raised edge at the entrance mat.
Concealment, lighting, glare, and floor pattern	Clear liquid on glossy white tile.
A normal walking path, or displays and carts to steer around	A pallet narrowing the main aisle.
A recurring condition or known equipment problem	A cooler that leaked before.
Missing or hidden warnings	A yellow cone behind a shelf.
A violated standard or industry practice, if supported and admissible	A documented flooring standard.
A foreseeable risk of this kind of injury	A slip on a smooth wet surface.

Experts can't cure missing notice proof; in Peterson the expert testimony didn't establish how long the puddle existed. See wet floors and warning signs at La Michoacana.

Expert field	Defined question it answers
Floor surfaces and slip resistance	How slippery this tile was when wet.
Display and shelving stability	Why the endcap fell.
Refrigeration and drainage	Where the water came from.
Lighting, visibility, and human factors	Whether a shopper could see it, and where she'd reasonably look.
Safety standards and industry practice	What a reasonable operator would have done.

7. Prove the store failed to use reasonable care

The third element asks whether the store failed to use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, measured against the actual condition.

Duty rule	Source
An owner generally meets its duty by making the premises reasonably safe or adequately warning of concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions it knows or should know about	McIntire and United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine.
Store rules don't raise the bar above ordinary care, and a written inspection schedule doesn't prove how long the spill sat there	Peterson.

"They should have inspected more often" isn't enough alone; name the available action, when it could have been taken, and how it would have reduced the risk.

Condition	Possible precaution
A spill	Cleaning it up.
A leaking refrigerator or case	Repair, and inspection of equipment that creates foreseeable hazards.
An unstable display, pallet, or shelf	Removing or securing it.
An unsafe area	Blocking it, a conspicuous warning, or a safe alternate route.
The policy question	Ask what the written policy required and, separately, what a reasonably prudent operator would have done; the answers may differ.

Whether the shopper actually knew of the danger can affect the duty analysis and comparative responsibility, and a sign doesn't settle liability by itself. More is in our article on La Michoacana wet-floor warnings.

Warning question	Hypothetical example
Placed before the fall or after?	Video shows the cone arriving two minutes later.
Reasonably visible, and did it describe the hazard?	A generic "Caution" sign behind a produce shelf.
A safe route around, and did a barrier block access?	Tape across half the only aisle to the meat counter.
Did the warning create its own obstruction?	A sign base a shopper tripped over.

8. Prove proximate cause and connect the fall to the injuries

The fourth element needs two answers: the condition caused the fall, and the fall caused the medical conditions and losses claimed.

What the shopper describes	Compare it with
Path, direction, and where the hazard was	Photos, video, and a store diagram.
What you saw, and whether you slipped, tripped, or were struck	Lighting, physical evidence, and the hazard type.
What hit the floor, and any blackout or memory gap	Emergency and ambulance records.
What you saw right afterward	Witnesses and the incident report, which may hold shorthand or secondhand assumptions and isn't conclusive.

The medical chronology should show the condition before the accident, symptom onset, the first evaluation, later diagnoses, and the course of treatment.

Medical records	What they add
Emergency, ambulance, first-provider, imaging, specialist, therapy, surgery, and prescription records	Onset, diagnosis, and course of treatment.
Prior records for the same body parts, records of later events, and future-care opinions	The baseline, alternative explanations, and future damages.

A prior or degenerative condition doesn't defeat a claim, but hiding it hurts credibility when it surfaces in discovery, so the medical evidence has to sort it.

Category	Hypothetical example
Existed before, or present but symptom-free	Knee arthritis on an old X-ray, untreated for years.
Aggravated by the fall	Arthritis that now needs injections.
A new injury	A wrist fracture from the fall.
Unrelated	A shoulder problem from a later car wreck.

Don't promise a recovery from a diagnosis or injury label; value depends on liability proof, causation, damages evidence, comparative responsibility, available insurance or assets, and other facts. Our guide to medical proof and damages in a La Michoacana case goes further.

Damage category	Supporting evidence
Past and future medical expenses	Itemized bills, admissible proof of recoverable expenses, qualified opinions, and cost evidence.
Physical pain and mental anguish	Plaintiff testimony, treatment records, and family and coworker observations.
Physical impairment and disfigurement	Functional limits, photographs, testimony, and expert evidence where appropriate.
Lost wages and lost earning capacity	Payroll, tax, and employer records, work history, vocational and economic evidence, and medical restrictions.

9. Analyze the defenses before they become trial surprises

Expect defenses in the answer, discovery, depositions, expert challenges, and trial, and investigate each one instead of accepting it.

Comparative responsibility	Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
A claimant more than 50 percent responsible recovers nothing in an action under the statute	Section 33.001.
Otherwise, damages are reduced by the claimant's percentage	Section 33.012.
The store may say you were on your phone, distracted, not watching, in poor footwear, familiar with the area, or ignored a warning	Check the video, what was visible, the shoes, and where any sign stood.

Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015), says an owner usually has no duty to warn about a danger that's open and obvious or already known to the person, with exceptions. Austin was an employee suing his employer, not a shopper, so use it with care.

Open-and-obvious question for clear liquid	Evidence
Was it visible from your approach, or did it blend into a reflective floor?	Video and photos along your path, and lighting evidence.
Did a display block the view, or did the aisle force you to look elsewhere?	Aisle photos and video of carts and shoppers.
Did you actually know it was there?	Your testimony, not a post-accident photo.

Resolve conflicts among your account, the video, the incident report, and the medical chronology before mediation or trial; see our La Michoacana wet-floor article.

Defense	Response
"It was too small to matter"	Show what the hazard looked like and how many people walked through it. McIntire matters most for parking lots and walkways, and a bad injury doesn't settle the question.
"Nobody knew, it just appeared, and no one can say how long"	After Peterson, point to evidence of how long it was there, or that someone knew, at that spot and time. A guessed source or general inspection habits won't do.
"Something else made you fall"	Look at the video, the witnesses, and earlier or later medical events before suit if you can.

10. Evaluate the case before discovery

Before formal discovery, counsel should write a candid liability assessment covering strengths, weaknesses, missing evidence, and next steps, with no settlement value lacking a defensible basis.

Topic	Questions the assessment answers
Defendant and control	Which entity ran the store, who controlled the area, whether maintenance was delegated, and whether others are responsible.
Condition	What caused the injury, whether it's a premises defect, negligent activity, product defect, or other claim, and whether it can be reliably identified.
Knowledge	Any actual knowledge, and otherwise the evidence of duration, proximity, and conspicuity for this hazard at that time and place.
Risk and care	The physical facts showing unreasonable risk, the available precaution, and any warning, barrier, cleanup, or repair.
Causation and damages	Check that the fall matches your account, the records support each injury, prior and later events are explained, and a doctor backs any future care.
Defenses	Likely comparative-responsibility, open-and-obvious, or alternative-explanation arguments, and whether the notice proof is vulnerable under Peterson.

The checklist below goes with the assessment, and the La Michoacana store-notice article walks through the same foundation.

Practitioner checklist before discovery	Done when
Store location, operating entity, owner, occupier, manager, and contractors	Each is confirmed by records, not the sign.
Claim classification and liability theory	The theory fits how the injury happened.
The condition's location and physical traits	Documented with photos and measurements.
Actual knowledge, or duration evidence for constructive notice	Identified for this specific condition.
Any source tied to the condition at that time and place	Linked by evidence, not inference.
Employees near the condition before the fall	Named, with times.
Visibility under actual lighting and viewing conditions	Assessed from the shopper's approach.
Reasonable precautions, comparative responsibility, and open-and-obvious defenses	Listed and investigated.
Medical chronology and causation issues	Prepared.
Written proof matrix of evidence, gaps, and next steps	Complete.

11. What Peterson means for discovery

After Peterson, discovery should go after proof of how long the hazard was there and when the store could have found it. General safety manuals and old, unrelated problems won't do that work.

Central discovery question	Hypothetical target
Who operated and controlled the store and the accident area?	The operating entity and any refrigeration or cleaning contractor.
What was the condition, how did it arise, and when did it first exist?	A leaking seal on the meat case, and video from the hour before.
Who saw or encountered it, and what inspection, cleaning, or reporting happened?	The butcher and stocker on shift, sweep entries, and work orders.
What video, data, records, and messages document it?	Native camera files and manager texts.
What supports or undermines the account and medical causation?	Witness statements and the urgent care intake note.

Requests for every policy and incident report over several years can run up cost without finding what matters. Tie each request to the condition, area, time window, equipment, and employees, as the La Michoacana notice article explains.

Request scope	Likely result
Every policy and incident report for five years	Expense, objections, and little proof of duration.
Meat-aisle cameras from 5:00 to 6:45 p.m. on the accident date, plus that case's maintenance records	Evidence of when the puddle appeared and where it came from.

12. Written discovery that builds the trial record

Written discovery pins down who ran the La Michoacana location, what the store knew, and which records will exist when the case reaches a jury.

Possible responsible party	What to pin down
Property owner or landlord	Legal name and lease.
Store-operating tenant	Assumed names, formation records, and registered agent.
Management company	The management agreement.
Separate employer of store staff	Who hired and scheduled the meat-counter crew.
Refrigeration, flooring, maintenance, or cleaning contractor	Service contract and work orders.
Owner of a display, equipment, or merchandise	Who placed and serviced the freezer case.
Security, inspection, or incident-reporting vendor	Whether it kept logs or reports.

These are categories to investigate, not assumptions about how any La Michoacana location is organized. The sign may not name the entity in control, and discovery aimed at the wrong entity causes delay and can leave evidence outside the case.

Discovery tool	What counsel asks for	Caution
Disclosures under Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.2, as amended	Legal theories, potential responsible persons, discoverable insurance, and other required items, checked against the pleadings	Confirm the current rule and discovery-control order; a named manager is a starting point, not proof of full knowledge or the right entity.
Interrogatories on the incident	The store's account, employees present, when the condition was first seen, who inspected last, and how long the store says it existed	Target questions; "state every fact supporting every defense" invites proportionality objections.
Interrogatories on inspections and notice	Procedures in effect, frequency, assigned staff, how spills and leaks are logged, maintenance history, prior complaints and incidents, recurring leaks or drainage, who investigated, and corrective action	Tie each question to the area, equipment, and period.
Interrogatories on defenses	The facts behind lack of knowledge, the shopper causing the condition, comparative responsibility, duration and visibility, and any open-and-obvious or not-unreasonably-dangerous contention	Ask only what fits the claims and evidence.
Requests for admission	Operation and control of the area, inspection duties, an employee on shift, a working camera, a document's authenticity, a photo's accuracy, and a policy in effect	Isolate admissible facts; don't ask for legal conclusions or the ultimate issue.

Requests for production often matter most, because the store operator, owner, or a contractor holds the key evidence.

Production category	Hypothetical request for one store
Video and electronic evidence	Footage of the meat counter and nearby aisles, native files, camera maps and maintenance, retention and overwrite settings, and messages about copying or deleting video.
Incident and inspection records	Reports and attachments, inspection checklists, cleaning logs, work orders, complaints, and employee photos.
Policies and training	Spill, leak, and hazard-reporting rules, department training, customer-report and preservation procedures, and the versions in effect that day.
Contracts and corporate records	Leases, management, cleaning, and refrigeration contracts, repair responsibility, vendor work orders, and documents naming the operator, owner, and safety staff.

Set a date range, location, subject, and custodians; a request for every safety document at every affiliated store invites relevance and proportionality objections. Request language by category is in our guide to written discovery in a La Michoacana injury case.

Discovery task	What it involves	Why it matters
Preservation demand	Date, time, location, native video and metadata, plus the client's photos, shoes, clothing, receipts, and messages	Don't assume a camera covered the spot or that footage was kept.
Missing-video questions	Did the camera exist, work, and cover the spot; how long was footage kept; when were the fall and the preservation request reported; was it reviewed or copied	Missing video isn't automatic proof of negligence or spoliation; Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014), leaves spoliation and remedy to the trial court.
Deficiency letter	The request, the gap, why it's relevant and proportional, and the supplementation sought, then a good-faith conference before any motion	Written responses alone don't make production complete.
Case file	Chronology, witness list, evidence index, response chart, and open issues	Every fact should trace to its source.
Hypothetical: water by a refrigerated meat case	Inspection logs, refrigeration repairs, schedules, leak complaints, nearby footage, cleanup records, contracts, and when the water was first seen	Test whether a refrigeration defect explains the water and what the store knew; don't assume it.
Trial-planning check	What condition caused the injury, what shows knowledge, unreasonable risk, and lack of reasonable care, and what medical proof links the fall to the losses	Apply Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. 2006), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998), and Aldridge to the facts; no single decision replaces fact-specific analysis.

13. Depositions of managers, employees, and corporate witnesses

Depositions put sworn testimony behind who knew about the condition, when it arose, what inspections happened, and whether store procedures were followed.

Item in each witness plan	Hypothetical entry for an assistant manager
Relationship to the parties	Employed by the store-operating entity.
Role on the incident date	Running the evening shift.
Personal knowledge	Walked to the produce aisle after the fall.
Documents created or relied on	Signed the incident report.
Facts the witness can establish	When the area was last inspected.
Likely uncertainty or contradiction	The inspection time on the log.
Testimony needed for a claim or defense	Whether the cleanup policy was followed.
Exhibits	The report, the checklist, and stills from the camera above the meat counter.

A deposition is an evidentiary event with a defined purpose, not an informal interview. The written-discovery record from written discovery supplies the documents each plan relies on.

Witness	Topics to cover	Caution
Store manager	Duties that day, authority to assign inspections, order cleanup, request repairs, or close an aisle, reporting lines, how inspections were done and logged, what staff looked for, record review, the response and report after the fall, video reviewed, later repairs, prior complaints, similar incidents, and records reviewed before testifying	A title doesn't prove personal knowledge or control of everything; test whether a "check every thirty minutes" policy was actually carried out and documented.
Employees who were present	Whether they saw the floor before, any liquid, grease, debris, or merchandise, whether they cleaned, inspected, got a report, told a supervisor, signed a report, watched footage, or discussed the fall	Don't just ask whether they "knew"; establish what they saw, when, where they stood, and what they did.
Corporate representative under Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2(b)(1)	Ownership or operation of the store, control of the area, inspection and maintenance duties, policies for the hazard, training and supervision, cameras and retention, incident reporting, vendor contracts, prior incidents, and the entity's investigation	Describe matters with reasonable particularity; the organization testifies to what is known or reasonably available to it, so check the designation and preparation and seek more testimony on thin topics.
Maintenance or third-party contractor	Scope of work, dates and locations of service calls, who requested service, the condition reported, work performed, recurrence, recommended repairs, warnings to the store, and inspection or emergency duties	A service contract alone doesn't show the contractor owed or breached a duty to the shopper; the contract, conduct, law, and control decide that.

For outlines by witness type, read our article on manager and corporate-representative depositions.

Deposition practice	How it works
Exhibits	Use reports, stills or video, logs, cleaning and work-order records, photos, policies, contracts, communications, and discovery responses; establish what each is and how the witness knows it, and build foundation if authenticity is disputed.
Video	Identify source, date, camera location, time stamp, and completeness, because a still can omit context.
Locking down facts	Replace "You knew the floor was dangerous, correct?" with facts: assigned to inspect, present at a time, saw a condition, did or didn't report it, knew the procedure, took or didn't take action.
Client preparation	Listen, answer truthfully, don't guess, separate memory from what was learned later, ask for clarification, reject wrong assumptions, don't exaggerate, describe limits and improvements accurately, and correct mistakes; preparation isn't coaching.
Client review	Go over the incident account, medical chronology, work history, prior injuries, and damages, and address inconsistencies honestly.
Use of testimony	Depositions may serve impeachment, evidentiary use when permitted, and preservation; make a clear record of memory gaps, conflicts with documents, and objections, and follow up on newly named records or witnesses.
Hypothetical: inspection testimony	An employee says the meat-department floor was checked shortly before the fall but can't give the time; compare the log and video, since the answer may help either side depending on the full record.
After the deposition	Summarize by disputed issue, then list established facts, disputes, follow-up witnesses, missing documents, expert issues, stronger or weaker defenses, summary judgment evidence, and testimony to preserve for trial.

Clear liquid puddle on a supermarket aisle floor

14. Expert development for the technical and medical issues

Experts answer questions that need specialized knowledge, so start with the disputed issue, not the résumé.

Disputed issue in a hypothetical water-by-the-meat-case fall	Expert who might help	Can a fact witness cover it?
Whether a refrigeration unit, drain, or condensation produced the water	Engineer or refrigeration specialist	No, if the source is disputed.
Whether the floor surface affected slip resistance	Flooring or engineering expert	Usually not.
Whether reasonable inspection would have found it	Premises-safety expert	Partly, through employees.
Whether inspection and cleanup procedures fit the risk	Retail-operations expert	Partly, through policies.
Whether the fall mechanics fit the injuries	Biomechanics expert	No.
Whether treatment was needed and future care is probable	Treating physician or retained medical expert	A witness who saw water can prove the water, nothing more.

Build an expert-issue matrix listing each disputed issue, the evidence, the expertise needed, the anticipated opinions, and the designation deadline. Possible disciplines include premises safety, human factors, engineering, refrigeration, flooring, biomechanics, medicine, life-care planning, vocational rehabilitation, and economics, depending on the condition, injury, and evidence.

Expert type	What the expert evaluates	Limit to respect
Premises-safety or retail-operations	Hazard type, area layout, customer traffic, inspection procedures, frequency, quality, and documentation, training, response to reports, and use of warning signs or barriers	Negligence is for the court or jury; the expert should rest on recognized industry practice, not personal preference, and state the basis and method.
Engineering and technical	Refrigeration leaks, drainage, floor surfaces and transitions, equipment failure, falling shelving or displays, and fixture defects, using service records, specifications, and repair history	A water stain near a refrigerated case doesn't prove the unit leaked; document the area before repairs and get agreement or court supervision for destructive testing.
Human factors and visibility	Color and contrast against the floor, lighting, glare, approach direction, sightlines, displays, attention demands, hazard size and position, and visible warnings	Photos taken under different lighting or after a reset may mislead; open-and-obvious and duty questions stay legal questions under Texas law.
Medical	Orthopedics, neurology, neurosurgery, pain medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, and other fields the injury warrants	A treating physician can address diagnosis, prognosis, restrictions, and future care; retain an expert when that testimony leaves a disputed issue open.
Biomechanics or reconstruction	Forces, body position, surface, and point of impact when the defense says a standing-height fall couldn't cause the injury	A biomechanist isn't a physician and shouldn't diagnose or opine on medical causation.

Tex. R. Evid. 702 requires a qualified expert whose testimony will assist the factfinder, and Texas courts add reliability review. More on choosing and preparing witnesses is in our article on expert witnesses in a La Michoacana injury case.

Admissibility and preparation point	What counsel checks
Reliability authorities	E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995), on reliability; Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998), on the analytical gap between data and conclusion; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), a federal decision persuasive in Texas courts on technical testimony.
What the expert must explain	Materials reviewed, method and why it fits, assumptions and their support, limits, alternative explanations, and how each conclusion was reached; a polished report doesn't cure an unreliable method.
Designation under Tex. R. Civ. P. 195	Read the rule and the scheduling order for designation, discovery, and report requirements; a generic designation may not be enough, and report form varies.
Expert file	Engagement papers, CV, fees, materials provided and reviewed, demonstratives, reports, testing and data, discoverable prior testimony and publications, disclosable communications, and each opinion with its basis.
Daubert/Robinson challenge preparation	A mock examination on qualifications, scope, method, alternatives, limits, opinions outside the field, and weak assumptions, so problems get fixed or dropped instead of hidden.
Timing	Late expert work can cost reliable opinions, expert discovery, and trial readiness.
Hypothetical: shoulder and lumbar injury by a meat case	A premises-safety expert, a refrigeration engineer if evidence points to a leak, a medical expert, a life-care planner if permanent limits are supported, and an economist; the case doesn't automatically need all five.
Cost	Weigh fees against the issues, case value, complexity, and admissibility; the strongest plan uses qualified experts only on genuinely disputed issues.

15. Medical causation and damages that match the records

A fall isn't enough; the evidence has to connect the store's conduct, the incident, each injury, and each loss claimed.

Medical timeline entry	What to record
Before the incident	Baseline health and earlier injuries.
The incident and early signs	Date, approximate time, symptom onset, and first report of pain.
Early and ongoing care	ER visit, first tests, follow-ups, referrals, therapy, injections, and procedures.
Major decisions and function	Surgery recommended or done, work restrictions, and improvement or worsening.
Current status	Discharge or continuing care and future recommendations.

Record unfavorable findings too, like normal strength or a negative scan, because the defense will argue preexisting injury, unrelated treatment, ignored recommendations, or speculative future losses.

Causation question	Evidence that answers it
Does timing prove causation?	No; an injury after a fall isn't automatically caused by it.
Do findings fit the mechanism?	Body position, impact, severity, symptom progression, and exam findings.
Does something else explain it better?	Prior history, objective imaging, treatment response, and alternative causes.
Who ties it together?	The treating provider and experts where needed, keeping proximate cause separate from proof rules for each damages element.
What about arthritis or degenerative disc disease?	Texas generally allows recovery for aggravation with the required causal proof; separate baseline, the change, post-incident findings, and treatment for the aggravation, and review the Texas Pattern Jury Charge so jurors don't award for an independent condition.

Collect records from every ER, hospital, physician, imaging center, therapist, relevant pharmacy, and specialist, and check them for consistent history, findings, prior injuries, gaps, missed visits, medications, restrictions, and future-care advice.

Medical-expense point	What it means
Billing kept apart from records	Charged, paid, adjusted, owed, and recoverable amounts may differ.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.0105	Recovery is limited to amounts actually paid or incurred, as applied in Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011), so the original bill total isn't automatically admissible.
Reasonable and necessary	Show the care was related and necessary, the amount is reasonable under the evidentiary framework, and its status as paid, incurred, adjusted, or outstanding.
Expert proof	Tex. R. Evid. 702 may apply when necessity or reasonableness needs an expert; check the statutes and rules for the claim.

Medical proof and damages get fuller treatment in our article on medical proof and damages after a La Michoacana injury.

Damage category	Supporting evidence	Caution
Past medical expenses	Records, billing, §41.0105 analysis, and provider testimony	Only recoverable amounts.
Future medical expenses	Prognosis, life-care plan covering visits, medication, therapy, testing, injections, surgery, equipment, home changes, and daily help, plus cost evidence	Physicians establish need; the planner doesn't diagnose, and care must be reasonably probable, not merely possible, with transparent assumptions.
Past and future pain and mental anguish	Testimony on pain intensity, duration, sleep, walking, lifting, chores, recreation, family roles, and supported emotional effects, plus records and prognosis	Be specific; exaggeration hurts when records show improvement, and future effects need probability evidence.
Past and future physical impairment	What the client could do before and can't now, like lifting a child, carrying groceries, or climbing stairs, plus restrictions	A separate category, not a restatement of pain evidence, to avoid double recovery.
Disfigurement	Dated photographs, medical and surgical records, and testimony on scar location, visibility, and permanence	Photos must be accurate and not misleading.
Past lost wages	Employer, payroll, and tax records, schedules, attendance, job descriptions, and restrictions	Not every missed day is a recoverable loss without proof.
Future earning capacity	Supervisor testimony, vocational evaluations, economic analysis, and for the self-employed, invoices, contracts, and tax returns	Don't confuse business revenue with personal income.
Future noneconomic losses generally	Prognosis, permanent restrictions, objective findings, functional assessments, and expected course	A permanent injury doesn't prove every future category; submit each consistent with Texas law and the charge.

Before mediation and trial, add the amount claimed, sponsoring witness, expected defense challenge, and need for an expert to each row.

Hypothetical shoulder case question	Why counsel asks it
Prior shoulder symptoms, onset, and a consistent mechanism?	The ER found pain without fracture, later imaging found a rotator cuff tear, and the defense may call it degenerative.
Does imaging support it and does the treater relate it to the fall?	Pain after a fall isn't proof of causation.
Conservative care, probable surgery, restrictions, and future treatment?	Future medical and impairment need a probability foundation.
Are the expenses legally recoverable?	§41.0105 controls the amount.
Do deposition, records, discovery answers, expert reports, and trial testimony match?	Address a different injury date, body part, or undisclosed treatment before it becomes impeachment, and claim no more than the records support.

16. Summary judgment and dispositive motions

Summary judgment can end a La Michoacana injury claim before trial, so the response record has to be built during discovery.

Element the defense may challenge	Why it can't be assumed
Duty	It depends on the plaintiff's status, the claim, and the defendant's relationship to the premises.
Actual or constructive knowledge	Notice usually turns on how long the condition existed.
Unreasonable risk of harm	Some conditions are found not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
Failure to use reasonable care	A store is not an insurer of customer safety.
Proximate cause and damages	Medical proof must tie the fall to a legally recoverable injury.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a was rewritten effective March 1, 2026 (Supreme Court Misc. Docket No. 26-9012). The rewrite applies only to motions filed on or after that date, and except for its deadlines it isn't meant to change the law.

Motion under current Rule 166a	Movant's burden	Respondent's task
Traditional (Rule 166a(a)(1), (b)(2)(C), (h)(2))	State specific grounds and produce evidence showing no genuine issue of material fact, for example by negating an element or proving an affirmative defense	Show the proof falls short or raise a material fact dispute.
No-evidence (Rule 166a(a)(2), (b)(2)(D), (h)(3))	File after adequate time for discovery and state the elements challenged	Produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on each challenged element, or the court must grant it.
Either kind	Carry the title the rule requires	Check the title.

Deadline under current Rule 166a	Timing
Response (Rule 166a(d)(1))	Within 21 days after the motion is filed, unless the court grants leave or the parties agree.
Evidence not yet available (Rule 166a(d)(3))	File an affidavit or declaration explaining why.
Reply (Rule 166a(e))	Within 7 days after the response, with no new grounds.
Hearing or submission (Rule 166a(g)(1))	Not within 35 days after filing; generally set within 60 days (up to 90 in listed situations).
Ruling (Rule 166a(i))	A written ruling signed within 90 days after the hearing or submission.

Check local rules, standing orders and the scheduling order too, since Dallas and other counties issued their own orders. H-E-B, LP v. Peterson (Tex. 2026), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece (Tex. 2002) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez (Tex. 1998) frame notice, and Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge (Tex. 2014) governs lost video or records.

Notice evidence to look for	Hypothetical example
How long the condition existed	Camera footage over the produce aisle showing the spill 25 minutes before the fall.
Recurrence or a related problem	Work orders for the same leaking refrigerated case, though a leak elsewhere isn't notice.
Employees passing or inspecting	A sweep log gap from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.; an employee's proximity alone isn't enough.
A report or physical clues	A customer warning the meat counter, or cart tracks through the liquid.

A substance on the floor, standing alone, may not establish constructive knowledge.

Response task	What counsel does
Build the record early	Match video, employee and corporate testimony, inspection and incident records, admissible prior complaints, photos, and expert and causation opinions to each disputed fact.
Answer a no-evidence motion	Go element by element: the stated basis, admissible record evidence, why it raises a genuine fact issue, controlling authority, and a request for denial.
Answer a traditional motion	Test entitlement, factual support, contrary evidence, and any improper burden shift.
Test the movant's evidence	Check foundation, personal knowledge, qualifications, completeness, and admissibility.
Object and preserve	Object specifically and on time; a form defect in an affidavit isn't grounds for reversal unless pointed out by objection with an opportunity, but refusal, to amend (Rule 166a(j)(4)).
Handle partial rulings	Weigh amendment, reconsideration, or appeal when a party, theory, or defense is cut out.
Prepare for appeal	Get clear rulings and keep every filing, objection, and ruling in the record.

Speculation and the bare fact of a fall won't carry a response. See how to answer a summary judgment motion in a La Michoacana injury case.

Hypothetical no-video record	Likely result
Only proof is water present at the moment of the fall	A serious notice problem.
A recurring leak, an employee who saw the water, or a thin inspection history	The court weighs the actual record under the applicable standard.

17. Mediation and settlement evaluation

Mediation works best as the result of investigation, discovery, medical development and an honest risk assessment, never as a last-minute demand.

Readiness question	Why it matters at the table
Are the responsible entities identified, and is incident evidence preserved?	The wrong defendant or lost video changes value.
Has video been obtained or its absence investigated?	Notice proof often lives in the footage.
Have key witnesses been deposed and inspection records reviewed?	Notice and care are usually disputed.
Are medical records complete, past expenses evaluated under Texas law, and future care supported?	Chapter 41 limits medical expenses to amounts actually paid or incurred.
Are wage losses documented and experts in place where needed?	Unsupported categories lose credibility.
Have dispositive motions been resolved or evaluated?	A pending motion shifts both sides' risk.

Mediating before discovery ends is possible, but both sides should know what they're negotiating without. More on valuation sits in La Michoacana injury settlement value and mediation.

Mediation statement part	What it covers
Case overview	Parties, location, incident date, and nature of injury.
Liability	The condition, control, notice evidence, unreasonable risk, available precautions, failure of care, causation, and supporting proof.
Medical causation	Injury, treatment, diagnostic findings, and medical opinions.
Damages	Documented medical expenses, supported future care, lost income and earning capacity, pain, mental anguish, impairment, and disfigurement, kept apart from amounts the jury must evaluate.
Defense position	The strongest defense points, since ignoring them costs credibility.
Settlement position	The requested resolution and its basis, prepared under the mediator's instructions and confidentiality rules.

Under Chapter 33, a claimant more than 50 percent responsible recovers nothing, and otherwise damages are reduced by the claimant's percentage, so counsel tests visible warnings, detectability, chance to avoid the hazard, distraction evidence, and third-party fault.

Value and risk factor	Counsel's approach
Liability, notice quality, and witness credibility	Weigh the actual proof, not the size of the bills.
Injury severity, permanence, and causation	Tie each to medical evidence.
Insurance, collectability, costs, venue, delay, and appellate issues	Count them in the net picture.
Scenarios	Prepare conservative, expected, and favorable views as analysis, not promises.

Client and closing task	What to cover
Before mediation	The process, separate meetings, that the mediator doesn't decide, strengths, weaknesses, costs, and how an offer differs from the final recovery after liens and costs.
Settlement decision	The client makes the final decision, not the attorney, mediator, or adjuster.
Written terms	Amount, payment deadline, release scope, released parties, dismissal, liens, allocation, confidentiality, tax issues, conditions, and enforcement.
Reimbursement claims	Investigate Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA, workers' compensation, hospital, and health-plan interests rather than assume them.
If it doesn't settle	Record permitted offers, disputes, needed discovery, and expert issues, then return to the trial plan.

18. Trial preparation

Trial preparation turns the file into a clear presentation of admissible evidence tied to each legal element, and a big file isn't the same as a strong case.

Trial file component	What it holds
Theme	A simple, fact-based summary used only if the evidence supports each part; don't claim the store ignored a known hazard without proof of knowledge.
Notebook	Pleadings, orders, rulings, witness and exhibit lists, designations, expert opinions, medical chronology, damages, proposed charge, voir dire, opening, examination outlines, closing, objection authorities, demonstratives, and schedule.
Exhibit log	A unique number, source, authentication witness, admissibility status, and objections for each exhibit.
Exhibits	Store photos, video, incident reports, inspection and maintenance logs, policies, medical and billing records, imaging, wage records, expert materials, and control contracts, none admissible just because they were produced.
Deposition designations	Excerpts and counter-designations used as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Evidence permit, with context kept intact.

Witnesses testify only to what they know, and counsel must never influence testimony or encourage a witness to change a recollection.

Preparation task	Standard
The client	Courtroom, order of examination, listening, answering accurately, not guessing, and admitting unfavorable facts.
Experts	Methodology, assumptions, and limits in plain language.
Demonstratives	Store-layout diagrams, camera maps, and timelines that match the evidence, labeled as an aid or substantive evidence.
Motions in limine	Unrelated injuries, insurance, settlement talks, and wealth references, while still objecting at trial because a limine ruling generally doesn't preserve error.
Defense challenges	A response plan for each challenged category plus an alternate way to prove the fact.
Proof chart	Each event, from entering the store to medical care, matched to a witness or exhibit and an element.
Mock trial	Specific revisions on liability, medicine, damages, experts, the charge, and an overstated theme.
Logistics	Technology, video playback, subpoenas, expert schedules, accessibility, and qualified interpreters for Spanish-speaking clients or witnesses that meet court requirements.

The full checklist is in trial preparation and voir dire for a La Michoacana injury case.

Trial chronology step	Typical proof
Customer enters and reaches the department	Receipt timestamp and video.
Condition exists and employees pass	Video and sweep logs.
Fall, report, store response, and treatment	Testimony, incident report, and medical records.

19. Jury selection and voir dire

Voir dire identifies bias, explains the burden of proof, and seats jurors who can follow the court's instructions.

Topic to explore	Assumption it can surface
Lawsuits, fees, corporations, and insurance	Injury cases are a lottery.
Premises responsibility	Customers should always watch their step, or stores answer for every fall.
Medical treatment	Delayed symptoms, treatment gaps, and degenerative findings mean no injury, or every MRI finding proves one.
Surveillance video	No video means no case.
Burden of proof	A juror needs certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt instead of more likely true than not.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 226a and the rules on jury selection and challenges govern, along with the trial court's procedures and statutory requirements.

Rule for counsel	Why
Ask open-ended questions	Jurors can keep opinions if they can set aside a fixed bias.
Don't seek promises of a verdict or award	Voir dire isn't for advance commitments.
Don't suggest recovery follows from injury	The plaintiff still has to prove the claim.
Make a record on challenges for cause	Objections and requests need preservation.
Never strike on discriminatory grounds	Be ready to explain a challenged peremptory strike.

For question lists, see jury selection in a La Michoacana injury trial.

A fair juror can weigh	Even if the juror
The condition, store knowledge, inspections, plaintiff conduct, medical and damages evidence, and the instructions	Doesn't agree with counsel's position.

20. Examination of witnesses

Witness examination proves the case through admissible testimony and exhibits while keeping the story coherent.

Witness	What the examination covers
Injured customer	Life before, why they came to the store, the area, what they saw, the fall, symptoms, reporting, treatment, and current limits, in their own words and without guessing how long a hazard existed.
Employees and other customers	Where they stood, what they could see and did see, when, what they did and said, and personal knowledge versus what others reported.
Store manager	Actual role, procedures, inspection duties, and records, compared with documents and employee testimony and without assuming the manager knew everything.
Corporate representative	Preparation and designated topics: ownership, control of the area, cleaning, training, cameras, incident reporting, maintenance, contracts, and the company investigation.
Defense fact witnesses	Inconsistencies, limited knowledge, conflicts with records, and investigation gaps, without inviting a repeat of harmful testimony.
Defense experts	Records reviewed, incident assumed, whether they examined the plaintiff, qualifications, body position, alternative mechanisms, and scope, never misstating a concession.

Every question should have a purpose, and counsel should be ready for relevance, hearsay, authentication, and expert-reliability objections.

Evidence type	Foundation to lay
Video and photographs	Date, location, source, fair and accurate depiction, completeness, reliable time stamps, editing, and identification, with limits explained honestly.
Expert testimony	Qualifications, methodology, factual basis, and the link from data to conclusion, in plain words.
Prior inconsistent statements	The statement, a chance to explain, and accurate use under the Texas Rules of Evidence, aimed at meaningful inconsistencies.

Deeper treatment is in trial proof and the jury charge in a La Michoacana case.

Hypothetical video gap	Honest handling
Recording starts after the fall near checkout lane 3	Explain what it shows and what it can't prove.

21. The jury charge

The jury charge supplies the instructions, definitions and questions the jury answers, so an omitted question or unpreserved objection can undo a good trial.

Charge preparation step	What counsel checks
Start before trial	Pleaded theories, supported elements, controlling statutes and decisions, factual disputes, damages, affirmative defenses, and evidence for each submission.
Governing framework	Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 277 and related rules.
Premises questions	Knowledge, unreasonable risk, reasonable care, and proximate cause, fitted to the plaintiff's status and facts, never copied from another supermarket case.
Pattern charges	Texas Pattern Jury Charges, checked against controlling law and tailored.
Knowledge	An accurate standard that doesn't shift the burden of proof.
Proportionate responsibility	Proper pleading, persons included under Chapter 33, evidence for submission, and the more-than-50-percent bar.
Damages	Past and future medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, impairment, disfigurement, lost wages, and earning capacity, each supported and not duplicated.

A general objection may not preserve a specific complaint, and counsel can't insert an instruction telling the jury how to resolve a disputed fact.

Preservation record	Contents
Written submissions	Requested questions and instructions filed by the court's deadline.
Refused or objected language	The request, legal basis, supporting evidence, ruling, and specific objection.
Charge conference	A line-by-line review of the final charge against the proposed charge, kept in the record.

The hypothetical of an employee passing the spot shortly before the fall is covered in proving a La Michoacana case to the jury.

Hypothetical dispute	Charge rule
Did the passing employee have a reasonable chance to see the spill?	The jury decides under the court's legal standard.

22. Closing argument

Closing argument walks the jury through the charge questions using evidence already in the record, never new facts.

Closing segment	What it covers
Theme	The central factual issue.
Liability	The condition, knowledge evidence such as video, logs, and manager testimony, reasonable care, and facts versus inferences.
Causation	Client testimony, first complaints, imaging, treating doctors, the treatment timeline, and unfavorable findings acknowledged.
Damages	Each category tied to admissible proof, with no punishment theme unless exemplary damages are legally supported and submitted.
Defense response	No notice, a fresh spill, an open hazard, preexisting conditions, and unrelated treatment, each answered with evidence.
Credibility	Contemporaneous records and honest handling of inconsistent statements.
Verdict request	Answers supported by the record, with any amount grounded in evidence and the court's rulings.

Missing inspection records can be argued only as far as the evidence and rulings allow, and their absence doesn't automatically prove concealment.

Improper argument to avoid	Consequence
Excluded evidence, misstated testimony or law, facts outside the record, appeals to prejudice, improper "put yourself in their place" requests, or wealth claims	Texas courts review it under applicable standards, and preservation may depend on a timely objection.

Example structures are in closing argument in a La Michoacana injury trial.

Strongest closing	Weakest closing
Makes the evidence understandable and gives a legally proper path to the verdict.	Relies on emotion the record can't support.

23. Post-trial motions

Post-trial motions can change the judgment and preserve issues, and their short deadlines run from the signed judgment.

Review item	What to compare
Verdict and judgment	Answers, liability, proportionate-responsibility and damages findings, credits, offsets, statutory reductions, interest, costs, and unresolved parties.

Motion	Rule and focus
Motion for judgment	Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 301; address inconsistent or omitted findings promptly.
Motion to disregard findings	Rule 301; name the answer and the legal basis, not a claim the jury got it wrong.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict	Legal insufficiency of a specific finding, filed and presented as the rules require.
Motion for new trial	Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 320; insufficiency, improper argument, evidence rulings, charge error, juror misconduct, or newly discovered evidence, tied to the record.
Remittitur	Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 315; test the damages evidence and duplication, since no award survives just because a jury returned it.

Legal sufficiency asks whether reasonable and fair-minded jurors could reach the finding, while factual sufficiency asks whether it's so against the great weight of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust.

Deadline	Rule
Motion for new trial	Within 30 days after the judgment is signed (Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a)).
Ruling by operation of law	Motions not ruled on are overruled 75 days after judgment (329b(c)).
Plenary power and appellate timetable	Timely post-judgment motions can extend them, so calculate from the actual signed judgment.

For the full checklist, read post-trial motions and appeals in La Michoacana injury cases.

Post-judgment checklist	Action
First steps	Get the signed judgment and calendar every deadline.
Record review	Excluded and admitted evidence, expert rulings, charge objections, limine rulings, argument, and procedural errors.
Client advice	The judgment, appeal options, costs, and timing.

24. Appeals

An appeal isn't a second trial: the court reviews the trial record for reversible error under the right standard of review.

First question	What to confirm
Is it appealable?	A final judgment resolving all parties and claims, or an authorized interlocutory appeal.
Which court?	The proper court of appeals and any jurisdictional rules.
When?	A notice of appeal generally within 30 days after the judgment is signed (Tex. R. App. P. 26.1), extended by certain timely post-judgment motions; settlement talks never extend it.
What record?	Clerk's and reporter's records with pleadings, summary judgment papers, expert hearings, rulings, testimony, exhibits, charge objections, verdict, motions, and judgment.

An appellate court generally can't consider evidence that never became part of the trial court record.

Possible issue	Standard of review
Duty or legal standard	Often de novo.
Summary judgment under Rule 166a	The standard for the type of motion.
Expert reliability under Rule 702	Abuse of discretion, with controlling Texas precedent.
Evidence rulings	Generally abuse of discretion, if preserved and harmful.
Legal and factual sufficiency	The governing sufficiency standards.
Jury charge and damages	Charge-error and harm analysis, and compliance with the evidence and law.

Preservation may require a specific objection, a requested question, a ruling, an offer of proof, a post-judgment motion, or evidence in the record, and few issues can be raised for the first time on appeal.

Appellate stage	What it involves
Brief	Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38: parties, contents, authorities, statement of the case, issues, facts with record cites, summary, argument, prayer, and certificates.
Oral argument	Best and worst authority, standard of review, preservation, harm, and remedy, with no new theory.
Outcomes	Affirm, reverse, render, remand, or modify; reversal doesn't automatically mean recovery.
Further review	Rehearing, en banc reconsideration, or a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, with deadlines checked right away.
Client risk talk	Preserved issues, reversal odds, a possible new trial, cost, duration, settlement, and enforcement.

More detail sits in La Michoacana injury appeals.

An appeal decision rests on	Not on
The record, legal issues, relief available, and the client's goals.	Disagreement with a ruling alone.

25. Integrating the litigation lifecycle

Each stage should produce what the next one needs, and a case is trial-ready only when counsel can name the admissible evidence for every element.

Area	Ready before trial when
Liability	The correct entities are identified, with proof of control or responsibility.
Liability	The condition is pinned down, and evidence shows actual or constructive knowledge.
Liability	Inspection, maintenance, and response evidence is gathered, and likely defenses are mapped.
Medical causation	Injuries are documented in a complete chronology, with prior conditions investigated.
Medical causation	Causation rests on reliable methodology, and defense arguments are evaluated.
Damages	Past medical expenses are documented under Texas law, and future care is reasonably probable.
Damages	Wage, earning-capacity, and noneconomic claims are supported, with duplicates excluded.
Trial preparation	Witnesses are available, exhibits authenticated, and expert opinions admissible.
Trial preparation	Motions and objections are ready, the charge is accurate, and the case can be explained fairly.
Post-trial and appeal	Objections are preserved, the record is complete, deadlines are calendared, and issues are identified.
Post-trial and appeal	The client understands the possible outcomes and costs.

A closed discovery period or a trial setting doesn't make a case ready. When you're choosing counsel, questions about fees, insurance, and attorney selection and the La Michoacana supermarket injury hub cover the next steps.

Trial-ready means counsel can	Hypothetical check
Identify admissible proof for each element	A proof chart with no blank cells.
Anticipate the principal defenses	A written answer to the "fresh spill" argument.
Present damages accurately	Bills matched to amounts paid or incurred.
Preserve issues	Charge objections filed in writing.

Tell us about your La Michoacana injury or call (214) 200-4878. Aaron Herbert is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. No result is guaranteed, and contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Frequently asked questions

Question	Short answer
Can a La Michoacana injury case end before trial?	Yes. Summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a can remove claims, parties, or defenses when the record lacks evidence on a required element.
How long is there to answer a summary judgment motion?	Under the rule effective March 1, 2026, the response is due within 21 days after the motion is filed, unless the court grants leave or the parties agree, and local orders should be checked.
Is a spill on the floor enough to prove the store should have known?	Not by itself. After Peterson, the respondent needs some evidence of how long the condition existed at that time and place.
Who decides whether to accept a settlement?	The client makes the final decision, not the attorney, mediator, or insurance adjuster.
Does a shopper's own fault end the claim?	Only if the claimant is more than 50 percent responsible under Chapter 33; otherwise damages are reduced by the claimant's percentage.
Does missing video mean an automatic win?	No. Under Aldridge, the trial court decides whether spoliation occurred and what remedy fits.
What's the deadline for a motion for new trial?	Generally 30 days after the judgment is signed under Rule 329b(a).
Do settlement talks extend the appeal deadline?	No. A notice of appeal is generally due within 30 days after judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, extended only by certain timely post-judgment motions.

Sources and legal authorities

Source	What it supports
H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026)	Constructive notice needs some evidence of how long the condition existed; earlier roof leaks elsewhere didn't fill the gap.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002)	Time-notice rule; an employee's proximity without more isn't constructive notice.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998)	Meager circumstantial evidence of duration doesn't prove notice.
City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 931 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1996)	Knowing a roof leaks isn't knowing of the puddle.
Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. 2006)	A general store-wide risk isn't the specific condition.
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992)	Negligent activity requires injury as a contemporaneous result of the activity itself.
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. 2017)	General premises-liability law on condition versus activity claims.
United Supermarkets, LLC v. McIntire, No. 21-0208 (Tex. June 17, 2022) (per curiam)	A parking-lot divot of about three-quarters of an inch wasn't unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015)	A certified question about an employer's duty to an employee, not a shopper case.
Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014)	The trial court decides spoliation and remedy; an instruction is reserved for intentional spoliation or negligent loss that irreparably deprives a party of a meaningful ability to present its case.
Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011)	Medical expenses are limited to amounts actually paid or incurred under §41.0105.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995)	Expert reliability gatekeeping under Rule 702.
Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998)	Reliability review applies to all expert testimony, including the analytical gap between data and conclusion.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)	A federal decision on the reliability of technical expert testimony, persuasive only in Texas courts.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 16	Section 16.003: generally two years for personal injury, subject to accrual and exceptions.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 33	Sections 33.001 and 33.012: no recovery above 50 percent responsibility; otherwise a percentage reduction.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 41	Section 41.0105: medical expenses limited to amounts actually paid or incurred.
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended October 1, 2026)	Rules 166a, 190, 194 (including 194.2), 195, 199, 226a, 277, 301, 315, 320, and 329b, plus the applicable discovery-control order.
Supreme Court of Texas, Misc. Docket No. 26-9012	The Rule 166a rewrite effective March 1, 2026, for motions filed on or after that date.
Texas Rules of Evidence (amendments effective July 2, 2026)	Rules 401-403, 602, 701-705, 801-806, and 901.
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (February 6, 2026)	Rule 26.1 notice-of-appeal timing and Rule 38 brief requirements.
Texas Pattern Jury Charges and local procedures	Drafting resources to be checked against controlling law and each court's local rules and standing orders.
State Bar of Texas profile, Aaron Alan Herbert, State Bar No. 24036761	Licensure and Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Legal sources checked November 2, 2026. Educational information only; not legal advice for an individual claim.

How to prepare a Texas La Michoacana supermarket injury case for trial

1. Identify the actual business and the responsible legal entities

2. Conduct a structured initial client interview

3. Investigate early and preserve the evidence

4. Choose the correct liability theory and prove each element

5. Constructive notice after H-E-B, LP v. Peterson

6. Prove the condition was unreasonably dangerous

7. Prove the store failed to use reasonable care

8. Prove proximate cause and connect the fall to the injuries

9. Analyze the defenses before they become trial surprises

10. Evaluate the case before discovery

11. What Peterson means for discovery

12. Written discovery that builds the trial record

13. Depositions of managers, employees, and corporate witnesses

14. Expert development for the technical and medical issues

15. Medical causation and damages that match the records

16. Summary judgment and dispositive motions

17. Mediation and settlement evaluation

18. Trial preparation

19. Jury selection and voir dire

20. Examination of witnesses

21. The jury charge

22. Closing argument

23. Post-trial motions

24. Appeals

25. Integrating the litigation lifecycle

Frequently asked questions

Sources and legal authorities

Aaron A. Herbert

Education

Trial experience & approach

Dallas roots, military service & publication

Professional affiliations & recognition

1. Identify the actual business and the responsible legal entities

2. Conduct a structured initial client interview

3. Investigate early and preserve the evidence

4. Choose the correct liability theory and prove each element

5. Constructive notice after H-E-B, LP v. Peterson

6. Prove the condition was unreasonably dangerous

7. Prove the store failed to use reasonable care

8. Prove proximate cause and connect the fall to the injuries

9. Analyze the defenses before they become trial surprises

10. Evaluate the case before discovery

11. What Peterson means for discovery

12. Written discovery that builds the trial record

13. Depositions of managers, employees, and corporate witnesses

14. Expert development for the technical and medical issues

15. Medical causation and damages that match the records

16. Summary judgment and dispositive motions

17. Mediation and settlement evaluation

18. Trial preparation

19. Jury selection and voir dire

20. Examination of witnesses

21. The jury charge

22. Closing argument

23. Post-trial motions

24. Appeals

25. Integrating the litigation lifecycle

Frequently asked questions

Sources and legal authorities

Aaron A. Herbert

Education

Trial experience & approach

Dallas roots, military service & publication

Professional affiliations & recognition

I am satisfied

I understood the entire process and best course of action

I will refer Aaron’s law firm to all the people I know

I just want to give a big thanks to this law firm

We are very pleased with our payout

Happy with my settlement

He has a lifetime referral from me

The law firm staff and attorneys were very nice

Great experience with this firm, very prompt service

I highly recommend this law firm