Gonzalez v. Walgreen: Fifth Circuit Affirms that Customer-Volunteers Are Not Agents and that “Source Knowledge” Alone Cannot Establish Premises-Liability Notice

Introduction

On 16 June 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided Gonzalez v. Walgreen, No. 24-50403, affirming a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) entered by the Western District of Texas. The dispute arose from a March 2020 slip-and-fall inside a Walgreens restroom in Austin, Texas. Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Gonzalez alleged that water on the floor—believed to have originated from an overflowing, customer-plunged toilet—caused his injuries. At trial, Gonzalez pursued (i) a premises-liability claim and (ii) a vicarious-liability theory predicated on the notion that the customer who attempted to unclog the toilet became Walgreens’ “agent.” After Gonzalez closed his case-in-chief, the district court granted Walgreens’ oral Rule 50(a) motion, finding insufficient evidence that the company had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. It later dismissed the vicarious-liability theory under Rule 12(b)(6). The Fifth Circuit now affirms, crystallising two critical principles:

1. Merely furnishing a tool to a customer does not create an agency relationship capable of imputing the customer’s knowledge to the retailer.
2. Knowledge of the source of a potential hazard (e.g., a clogged toilet) is not, without more, knowledge of the hazard itself; absent evidence of a policy, practice, or sufficient temporal facts, constructive notice cannot be inferred.

Summary of the Judgment

• Agency Claim Rejected – The court held that the unidentified customer’s attempt to plunge the toilet did not make him Walgreens’ agent. Agency requires a right of control, which the record did not show.
• No Actual Knowledge – There was no evidence Walgreens’ employees knew of water on the floor before the slip.
• No Constructive Knowledge – Approximately ten minutes elapsed between the customer’s report and Gonzalez’s entry—insufficient temporal evidence under Texas law. The size of the puddle and Gonzalez’s testimony did not cure the lack of timing evidence.
• “Source” Knowledge Insufficient – Drawing on Corbin v. Safeway, Gonzalez argued that store knowledge of a clogged toilet equates to knowledge of the resultant floor hazard. The Fifth Circuit, relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s recent narrowing of Corbin, disagreed.
• Vicarious Liability Dismissal Affirmed – Because any actionable duty ran exclusively to the premises owner, not its employees or volunteer customer, no separate tort supported vicarious liability.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002)
   Established the “temporal evidence” requirement for constructive notice. The Fifth Circuit invoked Reece to emphasise that, without evidence showing how long a spill existed, no jury may infer notice.
2. Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983)
   Historically permitted “source knowledge” to substitute for specific-hazard knowledge when the store’s display or practice routinely created danger. Gonzalez relied on this doctrine, but the Fifth Circuit—citing the Texas Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Albertsons v. Mohammadi—confined Corbin to scenarios involving a known policy or practice that regularly presents danger (e.g., self-service grape displays).
3. Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi, 689 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2024)
   Clarified that Corbin is only viable where a defendant’s policy/practice “routinely creates an unreasonable risk.” The Fifth Circuit leaned heavily on this clarification to reject Gonzalez’s “clogged-toilet” argument.
4. McCarty v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., 864 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2017)
   Recited the four elements of a Texas premises-liability claim; the first element—actual or constructive knowledge—was dispositive here.
5. Slip-and-Fall Timing Cases – Shirey, Threlkeld, Brookshire Food Stores, Robbins, Agbonzee
   All illustrate that 10–17 minute intervals are routinely deemed insufficient as a matter of law to establish constructive notice. The panel used this body of law to declare Gonzalez’s ten-minute window inadequate.
6. Union Pac. RR Co. v. Prado, 685 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. 2024)
   Cited for the principle that an agent’s knowledge is imputed to the principal, but the Fifth Circuit found no agency relationship to trigger imputation.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Agency Analysis
   • Agency requires both authorization and a right of control.
   • The evidence showed only that a Walgreens employee lent a plunger; no directions or supervision followed.
   • The customer remained free to abandon the effort and did so; lack of control defeated agency.
2. Actual Notice
   • No testimony that Walgreens staff saw water prior to the accident.
   • Employee statement that the “bathroom looked fine” immediately after the incident undermined actual-notice arguments.
3. Constructive Notice
   • Temporal Factor – Approximately ten minutes elapsed. Texas jurisprudence views similar intervals as legally insufficient.
   • Proximity & Conspicuity – Restroom was not in constant employee view; hazard inside the restroom was not obvious from the hallway.
   • Puddle Size Argument Rejected – Without seeing the leak occur, puddle size alone supports competing inferences (fast overflow vs. slow leak) and thus remains speculative.
4. Source-Knowledge Argument
   • Under Corbin a retailer’s knowledge of a dangerous practice may suffice, but only where that practice is routine and known.
   • No evidence suggested Walgreens’ restroom suffered recurring overflows; employees’ prior experience indicated the opposite.
5. Vicarious Liability
   • Premises duty belongs to the owner/occupier alone; employees’ or volunteers’ failures collapse into the premises claim rather than create independent negligence.
   • Pleading lacked any other tort to which vicarious liability could attach, warranting dismissal.

Anticipated Impact of the Decision

The precedent has several foreseeable effects:

• Narrowing “Customer-Volunteer” Agency Claims – Retailers occasionally enlist customers for quick fixes (e.g., tightening a jar lid, adjusting equipment). This decision insulates such retailers from agency-based liability absent demonstrable control.
• Clarifies the Declining Reach of Corbin – By aligning with Mohammadi, the panel signals that “source knowledge” theories must now show an established, risk-creating policy or practice, not a one-off problem.
• Re-emphasises Temporal Evidence Rigour – Plaintiffs must document when a dangerous condition likely began; large puddles or debris alone may not imply longevity.
• Strategic Guidance for Retailers – Stores can confidently delegate minor remedial tasks to patrons (handing a plunger, paper towels, etc.) without automatically assuming agency liability, provided they do not exert direction or control.
• Litigation Strategy for Plaintiffs – Future plaintiffs will need surveillance, witness, or expert evidence tying the hazard’s duration to a concrete timeframe or company practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Premises Liability vs. Negligent Activity – Premises liability covers injuries caused by a property defect the owner failed to correct. Negligent activity requires contemporaneous, affirmative conduct by the defendant that injures the plaintiff. Gonzalez’s claim was the former.
• Actual vs. Constructive Knowledge
  Actual knowledge means the defendant truly knew about the hazard.
  Constructive knowledge imputes notice when the hazard existed long enough that the defendant should have found it.
• Temporal Evidence – Facts indicating how long the hazard was present (e.g., surveillance timestamps, witness observations). Texas courts treat this as the linchpin for constructive knowledge.
• Agency – A relationship where one person (agent) acts for another (principal) who controls the agent’s actions. Control—not merely permission—is indispensable.
• Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) – A procedural device under Rule 50 authorising the judge to enter judgment when no reasonable jury could find for the non-movant on a claim or defence.

Conclusion

Gonzalez v. Walgreen reinforces longstanding Texas premises-liability doctrines while carving out two notable clarifications: (1) deputising a customer to perform a quick repair does not, without control, transform that customer into the store’s agent; and (2) awareness of a potential hazard source, absent evidence of a recurring dangerous practice or adequate temporal proof, is insufficient to impute knowledge of the hazard itself. Consequently, the ruling tightens the evidentiary demands placed on slip-and-fall plaintiffs in retail contexts and affords retailers clearer parameters for delegating ad-hoc tasks to patrons without incurring heightened liability. This decision will likely be cited frequently in future agency-imputation disputes and constructive-notice analyses within the Fifth Circuit and Texas state courts alike.