Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.003(a), 33.001, 75.002, 95.002; PJC 66.4
Premises liability in Texas — status, knowledge, and why calling it "negligence" can sink the case
A claim in Texas district and county courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
A premises case is a negligence case with an extra threshold: the plaintiff has to prove the owner or occupier knew, or should have known, about the specific dangerous condition. Texas does not make a property owner an insurer of everyone who walks in.
Two things decide most of these cases before the facts are even reached. The plaintiff's status on the land sets the duty owed, and the theory pleaded — premises defect or negligent activity — determines which jury question the case goes to. Getting the second one wrong has cost plaintiffs verdicts they had already won.
What the claim is
You were hurt by a condition on someone else's property — a spill, a broken step, an unlit stairwell, a parking lot where you were attacked — that the owner should have fixed or warned you about.
Where the right comes from
Common law. The invitee elements come from Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983). The duty framework was refined in Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015). Negligent security runs through Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998), and Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010).
What a plaintiff has to prove — PJC 66.4 (invitee)
- A condition of the premises posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
- The owner or occupier had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.
- The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk.
- That failure proximately caused the injury.
Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 295–96.
Status sets the duty
| Status | Who it covers | Duty owed |
|---|---|---|
| Invitee | A customer, a business visitor — someone there for the owner's benefit | Reasonable care to make safe or warn of conditions the owner knew or should have known about |
| Licensee | A social guest, someone there with permission for their own purposes | Not to injure wilfully or by gross negligence, and to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition the owner has actual knowledge of |
| Trespasser | Someone with no permission to be there | Not to injure wilfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence |
The difference between constructive knowledge and actual knowledge is why status is litigated first in most of these cases.
Premises defect versus negligent activity
Texas treats them as distinct theories. Negligent activity is injury caused by an ongoing activity — a worker drops something on you. Premises defect is injury caused by a condition the activity left behind — a worker mops the floor and you slip an hour later.
A plaintiff who pleads and submits only a negligent activity question in a condition case can lose a favorable verdict on appeal. The Texas Supreme Court has held that recovery on one theory does not survive if the evidence supports only the other.
How long you have to file
Two years from the injury, under CPRC § 16.003(a).
What has to happen before you file
Nothing, unless the property belongs to a governmental unit. A claim against a city, county or state agency runs through the Tort Claims Act, which imposes its own notice requirements and treats a premises defect claim as a licensee claim unless the claimant paid to use the premises.
What the claim pays
Personal injury damages — medical expenses limited to amounts paid or incurred, lost earning capacity, physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment.
Exemplary damages for gross negligence, on clear and convincing proof, capped by CPRC § 41.008.
No attorney's fees.
Statutory limits worth knowing
Recreational use. CPRC § 75.002 reduces the duty owed to a person who enters agricultural land, or other land, for recreation to the duty owed a trespasser. The owner who gives permission does not assure the premises are safe.
Independent contractors. CPRC § 95.002 applies to a claim by a contractor, subcontractor or their employee for injury arising from work on an improvement to real property. A property owner is liable only if it retained control over the work and had actual knowledge of the danger.
Common defenses
- No actual or constructive knowledge of the specific condition. The most common winning defense: the spill happened four minutes before the fall.
- Open and obvious. A danger the plaintiff could plainly see and avoid.
- Status. The plaintiff was a licensee or trespasser, lowering the duty.
- Proportionate responsibility under CPRC § 33.001, barring recovery above 50 percent.
- The claim is in substance a negligent activity claim, or the reverse.
- Chapter 95 for contractor injuries; Chapter 75 for recreational use.
- Limitations.
Negligent security
When the injury is a criminal act by a third party, foreseeability does the work. Timberwalk asks whether prior crimes on or near the property were proximate in location, recent and frequent enough, and similar and publicised enough to put the owner on notice. Without that showing there is no duty to guard against the crime at all.
What people get wrong
Being hurt on someone's property is not enough. The owner has to have known or had reason to know about the condition. Premises liability is not strict liability.
"They should have had a wet floor sign" is a conclusion, not evidence. The case usually turns on how long the hazard was there — the constructive knowledge question.
A customer and a guest are not owed the same duty. Someone visiting a friend's house is a licensee, and the owner is liable only for dangers it knew of in fact.
An owner is not automatically responsible for a crime committed on its property. The foreseeability showing comes first.
Where it came from
Texas built its premises law on the old English status categories and, unlike California, never abolished them. Corbin fixed the invitee elements in 1983 and they have been stable since.
The Legislature has narrowed the field around the edges — Chapter 75 for recreational use in 1981 and after, Chapter 95 for contractor injuries in 1996, and the Chapter 33 proportionate responsibility framework that decides how fault is divided. Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (Tex. 2025) applies here as it does in motor vehicle cases: a condition that merely made the injury possible is not a proximate cause of it.
Common questions
How long do I have to file a slip and fall claim in Texas?
Two years from the date of the fall.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
No. There is no fee statute for premises liability.
Do I automatically win because I was hurt on their property?
No. You must prove the owner knew or should have known about the specific dangerous condition and failed to make it safe or warn you.
Does it matter whether I was a customer or a guest?
Yes, and it can decide the case. A customer is an invitee and is owed reasonable care. A social guest is a licensee, and the owner is liable only for dangers it knew of in fact.
Can I sue after being assaulted in a parking lot?
Sometimes. You must show the crime was foreseeable — usually through prior similar crimes nearby that were recent, frequent and publicised enough to put the owner on notice.
What if the hazard was obvious?
An open and obvious condition can defeat the claim, because the owner's duty is generally discharged when the danger is apparent to a reasonable person.
Where these rules live
- CPRC § 16.003 — Two-year limitations period
- CPRC § 33.001 — Proportionate responsibility
- CPRC § 41.003 — Standards for recovery of exemplary damages
- CPRC § 41.008 — Limitation on amount of recovery
- CPRC § 75.002 — Liability limited for recreational use
- CPRC § 95.002 — Property owner liability for acts of contractors