Does a Walmart wet-floor sign or cone prove the store knew about the hazard?

Take Competing Explanations To The Case Review

Imagine a photograph of a customer on the floor beside a yellow cone. Save it, and look for an earlier view of the same part of the aisle to investigate when the cone arrived. The photograph alone cannot supply that time.

For the case review, record what the available evidence shows before explaining why the cone was there. Its arrival, movement or intended wet area may still be unknown. Test the possible explanations against the records instead of choosing one from the photograph alone.

Record these observations separately:

• A witness may remember the cone before the fall.
• Footage may first show the cone after an employee comes to help.

The footage’s first image of the cone does not establish its arrival time. Do not combine the two observations into an assumed arrival time.

The cone’s arrival time may be known even when the time the liquid has been on the floor is not.

• Keep a separate account for each speaker, recording when that person observed the wet area or took action.
• Record the alternative explanations and retain evidence supporting or contradicting each one.
• Compare the cone placer’s explanation with cleanup requests and reports that may corroborate it.

For the rest of the claim, see the Walmart knowledge hub. The inquiry here is narrower: what can the available evidence establish about this warning device?

Examine The Warning From The Customer’s Approach

Walmart may argue that the cone adequately warned the customer even if it marked the same condition before the fall. Assess this customer’s opportunity to see and react, the warning’s visibility and the particular danger it conveyed. Knowing who placed the cone does not answer those questions. Evidence that the store knew about the condition does not settle warning adequacy either. Review both knowledge of the condition and warning adequacy: neither establishes negligence on its own.

If it is safe, take photographs along the customer’s approach route. A close-up of the cone’s printed face may omit an obstruction or show a face the customer never saw. Wider photographs can show the spill’s extent, the approach and objects that might block the warning.

In Sparkman, there were two warning cones in a wet entryway. The court upheld the jury's inadequate-warning finding on the record, including evidence about the cones' size and placement. Their existence did not settle adequacy.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sparkman, No. 02-13-00355-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 11, 2014).

Examine this customer’s opportunity to see and react. Sparkman concerned the evidence in that case; its holding does not make every cone inadequate.

Preserve the cone’s position and the records

• Leave the cone where it is. Record any changes others have already made.
• Retain the original photographs with their capture times.
• Where footage may show the cone arriving or moving, preserve the sequence that could establish those events.

Match the questions to the available records

Take the photographs and footage to the case review, with each person’s separately recorded account. Beside each question below, name the record that helps answer it. If the answer is still unknown, say so.

• Which condition did the cone address?
• What is still unknown about the cone’s placement?
• What could the customer perceive before reaching the wet area?

Preserve the material promptly for the case review.

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.