Here’s a clear analysis of Nelson v Methodist from Texas' 14th Court of Appeals, May 2025. The court's opinion can be downloaded by clicking here.

Case: Robbin Nelson v. Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital
Court: Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas
Date: May 8, 2025
Type: Premises Liability (Slip and Fall in Parking Lot)
Result: Jury verdict for Nelson reversed; judgment for Hospital affirmed on appeal.

Background

Robbin Nelson sued Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital after she fell in the hospital’s parking lot. Her heel got caught in a small divot (“pothole”) in the concrete, causing her to fall and injure herself. Her husband took photos of the spot afterward. The defect was described as “spalling”—a common wear-and-tear issue in pavement.

  • Nelson said she didn’t see the divot before falling.
  • The hospital’s staff and expert said the defect was less than an inch deep and “not a very deep mark,” and that such spalling was common.
  • The area had not caused prior incidents or complaints.

Trial Outcome

  • Jury: Found both Nelson and the hospital negligent, split fault 50/50, and awarded Nelson $197,500.
  • Judge: Overruled the jury (judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV), finding the defect was not “unreasonably dangerous” as a matter of law. Nelson received nothing.

Was the concrete divot an “unreasonably dangerous condition” under Texas law?

  • To win as a licensee (someone on the property with permission but not for business), Nelson had to prove:
    1. The condition posed unreasonable risk.
    2. The owner knew about it.
    3. Nelson didn’t know about it.
    4. The owner failed to warn or fix it.
    5. The failure caused her injury.

The appeal focused on the first point: whether the divot was unreasonably dangerous.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The court compared this case to United Supermarkets, LLC v. McIntire (Texas Supreme Court, 2022), where a similar parking lot divot was ruled not unreasonably dangerous.
  • Factors considered:
    • Was the condition marked or obvious? (Here, it was out in the open.)
    • Its size and depth? (Less than an inch.)
    • Prior complaints or injuries? (None.)
    • Was it unique or common? (Common in parking lots.)
    • Was it naturally occurring? (Yes, from wear and tear.)

The court said “tiny surface defects in pavement are ubiquitous and naturally occurring,” and it is unreasonable to expect property owners to fix every small imperfection. The divot here was “profoundly ordinary”—not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.

Even though Nelson was injured, that alone doesn’t make the hazard legally “unreasonable.” There was no evidence of other incidents or unusual danger.

Conclusion

  • The trial court was right to throw out the jury’s verdict.
  • The divot did not qualify as an unreasonably dangerous condition under Texas law.
  • Nelson loses the case; the hospital wins.

Takeaway:
To win a slip-and-fall case in Texas, the hazard must be more than a common, minor surface flaw. Even injuries alone aren’t enough—there must be evidence that the condition was unusually risky or had caused prior problems.

Girards Law Firm specializes in Severe Injury and Wrongful Death cases in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Please use the Chat feature at www.GirardsLaw.com if you would like to contact us about legal representation. 

Post A Comment