Houston Premises Liability Attorney

Texas premises liability law holds property owners responsible for injuries that occur on their property when those injuries result from the owner's negligence. This applies to commercial properties, residential properties, government buildings, and any space where the owner has a duty to maintain safe conditions for visitors.

David Mestemaker has handled premises liability cases throughout his 37-year career. Grocery stores with wet floors and no warning signs. Apartment complexes with broken stairs and inadequate lighting. Hotels with defective elevators. Parking garages with insufficient security. When a property owner knew about a dangerous condition — or should have known — and failed to fix it or warn visitors, they are liable for the resulting injuries.

The Duty Owed Under Texas Law

Texas premises liability law classifies visitors into three categories, each owed a different level of care. Invitees — people on the property for the mutual benefit of themselves and the property owner, such as customers in a store — are owed the highest duty. The owner must inspect for hazards, repair dangerous conditions, and warn of any risks that are not open and obvious.

Licensees — social guests and others on the property with permission but not for the owner's commercial benefit — are owed a duty to warn of known hazards. Trespassers generally are not owed a duty of care, with limited exceptions for children under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine.

Common Premises Liability Cases

Slip-and-fall cases are the most common type of premises liability claim. Wet floors, uneven surfaces, loose rugs, icy walkways, and spills that are not cleaned up promptly. These cases often come down to proving that the property owner knew about the hazard and had a reasonable amount of time to address it before the injury occurred.

Inadequate security cases arise when a property owner fails to provide reasonable security measures and a visitor is assaulted, robbed, or otherwise victimized by criminal activity. Apartment complexes, parking garages, hotels, and retail stores in high-crime areas have a duty to provide adequate lighting, locks, security cameras, and in some cases, security personnel.

Swimming pool accidents, dog attacks on commercial property, construction defects, toxic exposure from building materials, and elevator or escalator malfunctions all fall within premises liability. David evaluates each case against the specific legal duties the property owner owed.

Proving Negligence in Premises Cases

The key to a premises liability case is proving that the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition. Surveillance footage, maintenance logs, prior incident reports, employee testimony, and inspection records all help establish what the owner knew and when they knew it.

David moves quickly to preserve this evidence before it is overwritten or destroyed. Surveillance footage is typically stored for only 30 to 90 days. Incident reports can be altered or lost. The sooner you contact an attorney after a premises injury, the stronger your case will be.

Texas Premises Liability Law in Depth

Texas maintains the traditional common law framework classifying visitors as invitees, licensees, or trespassers, each owed a different duty. The distinction between premises liability and general negligence matters — premises liability concerns conditions on the property, while general negligence concerns activities.

For invitees, the Keetch v. Kroger standard governs slip-and-falls: the owner placed the substance, knew it was there and failed to clean it, or it was there long enough that the owner should have discovered it through ordinary care. That third prong — constructive knowledge based on time-on-floor — is where most cases are won or lost.

CPRC Chapter 75 creates a separate framework for recreational use of land. Landowners who allow the public to use property for recreation (hunting, fishing, hiking) owe no duty beyond refraining from gross negligence. This defense does not apply when the landowner charges for access.

Negligent Security Claims

The threshold issue is foreseeability. The Texas Supreme Court's Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain framework considers whether the property was in a high-crime area, whether similar incidents had occurred, the nature of existing security, and other relevant circumstances.

The prior similar incidents rule is the most common path to foreseeability. A series of car break-ins may put the owner on notice that more serious crimes are foreseeable. Prior police reports, incident logs, and area crime statistics are all relevant.

Reasonable security depends on property type and known risks: functioning lighting, deadbolts, gated access, security cameras, and regular patrols for apartments; visible personnel, cameras, and adequate lighting for retail. The standard is what a reasonably prudent owner would do — not perfection.

Damages often include physical injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, mental anguish, and PTSD — particularly in sexual assault cases where psychological damages can exceed physical ones.

Commercial Property Cases

Commercial property owners owe the highest duty because their visitors are almost always invitees. This requires regular inspection, prompt repair, and adequate warnings of hazards that cannot be immediately corrected.

Grocery stores and retail generate the largest claim volume. The critical question is actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard — which is why David immediately subpoenas surveillance footage, maintenance logs, and inspection records.

Hotels owe a heightened duty to guests. Defective elevators, slippery pool decks, poorly lit stairwells, malfunctioning locks, and inadequate fire safety all create liability. Parking garages present hazards from poor lighting, crumbling concrete, oil-slicked surfaces, and lack of security.

Shopping malls present multi-tenant liability issues. The mall owner maintains common areas while tenants maintain leased spaces. David reviews leases and property management contracts to identify every responsible party.

Residential Property Cases

Apartment landlords must maintain common areas and comply with Texas Property Code requirements: smoke detectors (Section 92.251), security devices on doors and windows (Sections 92.151-92.170), and prompt response to health and safety repair requests.

Swimming pool accidents involving children may invoke the attractive nuisance doctrine, imposing a duty to protect children too young to appreciate the danger — even child trespassers.

Dog bite liability follows Texas's "one bite rule" — requiring proof the owner knew the dog had dangerous propensities. Landlords aware of a tenant's dangerous dog who fail to act may share liability.

Homeowner liability for social guests follows the licensee standard: warn of known hazards the guest is unlikely to discover. No duty to inspect for hidden hazards the way commercial owners must.

Government Property and Sovereign Immunity

The Texas Tort Claims Act (CPRC Chapter 101) waives sovereign immunity for premises defects under Section 101.021(2), but requires proof the government entity had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition — a higher standard than constructive knowledge for private owners.

Damage caps under Section 101.023: $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for municipalities. These apply to all damages combined — more restrictive than the medical malpractice caps that apply only to non-economic damages.

Notice requirements — typically six months for municipalities — add another hurdle. The notice must describe the injury, time, place, and incident in sufficient detail for investigation. Missing the deadline can be fatal to the claim.

David has handled premises defect claims against municipalities, counties, school districts, and state agencies, navigating the TTCA framework's procedural requirements that catch attorneys who do not handle these cases regularly.

Damages in Premises Liability Cases

Texas allows full compensatory damages: past and future medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, physical pain and suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, and mental anguish.

Exemplary damages are available when the owner's conduct amounts to gross negligence under CPRC Section 41.001(11) — an extreme degree of risk with actual, subjective awareness and conscious indifference. A property owner who knows about a danger, receives repeated complaints, and deliberately refuses to spend money on repairs may face exemplary damages, capped under Section 41.008.

Proportionate responsibility under Chapter 33 applies. If the plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault, they recover nothing. Property owners routinely argue the plaintiff was inattentive, wore improper footwear, or ignored warnings. David prepares for these defenses from the start because the comparative fault allocation often determines the net recovery.