Falling on someone’s property in Austin is not the same thing as having a case against them. Texas premises liability law turns on a question most injured people don’t know to ask: were you an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser? The answer controls what duty the property owner owed you, and the property owner’s insurer knows the answer before they call.
The category fits the visitor, not the injury. A grocery store shopper, an apartment tenant, an Airbnb guest, and a kid cutting through a parking lot are all on someone’s property — and Texas law treats their claims very differently. Most consumer guides skip this and tell people that “if you got hurt on someone’s property, you have a case.” That’s not how it works.
An Austin, Texas premises liability lawyer starts the case by establishing visitor status, the duty owed under that status, and the evidence that the property owner knew or should have known about the hazard or condition that caused the harm. Without those three elements, the claim does not move forward, regardless of how serious the injury was.
Slingshot Law Injury Attorneys handles premises liability claims across Texas, including falls at retail and hospitality properties, falls and security failures at apartment complexes, and negligent security cases involving assaults and other crimes on commercial property. Free case reviews are available.
Call (800) 488-7840 for a case review.
What Does Texas Law Actually Require?
Texas premises liability requires three things to be proved before recovery is available: an unreasonably dangerous condition on the property, the property owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of that condition, and the owner’s failure to take reasonable steps to fix it or warn about it.
The practical hinge is knowledge — whether the property owner knew or reasonably should have known.
The Three Elements That Control the Case
- An unreasonably dangerous condition. Not every imperfection on a property qualifies. The condition must present a risk that a reasonable property owner would address.
- Actual or constructive knowledge. Either the owner knew about the condition, or the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it.
- Failure to take reasonable corrective action. Warning signs, repairs, barricades, or inspection procedures that a reasonable owner would have used.
Why Most Disputed Cases Turn on the Knowledge Element
The defense theory in nearly every premises case is the same: the property owner did not know about the condition, it had not existed long enough for them to discover it, and they had reasonable inspection procedures in place.
Surveillance footage, cleaning logs, inspection records, and prior incident reports either prove or defeat that defense. Without that documentation, the case rests on the plaintiff’s word against the property owner’s procedures.
Why Slingshot Law for Your Texas Premises Liability Case?
Premises liability is the practice area where the wrong evaluation costs the client the most. Cases that look strong on first description routinely fail on visitor status, notice, or the open-and-obvious doctrine. We take the cases the law actually supports, and we say so early when the law doesn’t.
Prosecutor Background That Drives Negligent Security Cases
Drew Gibbs served as a Texas prosecutor before joining Slingshot Law. The same analysis used to evaluate a violent crime on the criminal side — what was foreseeable, what the property owner should have anticipated, what the police investigation produced — is what drives a negligent security case on the civil side.
Drew’s background in that work is part of why we take negligent security claims involving apartment complexes, hotels, and commercial properties when the Timberwalk factors support them.
Methodical Screening That Filters Out the Cases That Lose
Scott Crivelli served as an active duty Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps officer, work that demands structured analysis of evidence and law under pressure. Premises cases reward that approach.
Before we file, we work through visitor status, notice, foreseeability, comparative fault exposure, and the cost of the experts the case will need. That filter is what allows us to invest fully in the cases that do move forward.
Direct Attorney Involvement in Every Case
The attorney you talk to at intake is the attorney handling your file. You hear from us directly, you get our analysis directly, and the decisions on your case are made by the person responsible for it. Premises liability is the wrong practice area for hand-offs.
Honest Evaluation Before You Commit Two Years to a Case
A Texas premises claim takes time, investigation cost, and emotional investment. The most useful thing a premises lawyer can do in the first conversation is tell you whether the case actually works under Texas law, what the weak points are, and what evidence the firm would need to develop. That conversation is the one we have at every intake.
Call (800) 488-7840 for a case review.
Property Types Where Negligent Security Cases Most Often Arise
Apartment complexes, gas stations and convenience stores, hotels, parking garages, bars, and shopping centers are the most common settings for Texas negligent security claims. Inadequate lighting, broken security cameras, unrepaired access gates, and absent or undertrained security can each support a claim when a crime follows on the property.
Civil and Criminal Cases Run on Different Tracks
The criminal case against the perpetrator and the civil case against the property owner are separate proceedings. They can run in parallel or sequentially. A conviction is not required for the civil claim, and an acquittal does not bar it.
The two have different burdens of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court, preponderance of the evidence in civil court — which is why a civil case can succeed where a criminal one didn’t.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics publishes victimization data that informs what level of security was reasonable for a given property type. Foreseeability is established through that data, prior crime reports, police records, security industry standards, and the property owner’s own incident logs.
Cases That Property Owners and Their Insurers Defeat
Some Austin premises claims look strong at first glance and lose on the law. Knowing which patterns get defeated, and why, is part of a real case evaluation.
Was the Hazard Open and Obvious?
Texas courts hold that invitees generally cannot recover for hazards apparent to a reasonable person. A wet floor with a visible warning sign, a step plainly visible, or a parking lot pothole in daylight will often be classified as open and obvious and defeat the duty element.
The necessary-use exception can overcome this when the invitee had no realistic choice but to encounter the hazard, but the exception is narrowly applied.
The Property Owner Had No Notice
When the hazard existed for only a short time and the property owner had no actual or constructive knowledge of it, the case usually fails on the knowledge element. A spill two minutes before the fall is generally not enough; a spill that sat for forty minutes with employees walking past is. The line is fact-specific and depends heavily on surveillance footage and inspection records.
The Plaintiff Was a Trespasser
A trespasser claim faces the highest bar in Texas premises law. The property owner owes no duty to keep the property safe, only the duty to avoid willful, wanton, or grossly negligent injury. Children sometimes receive different treatment under the attractive nuisance doctrine, but the doctrine is applied narrowly.
The 51 Percent Bar
Under Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001, a plaintiff who was 51 percent or more at fault is barred from any recovery. Insurers routinely argue the plaintiff was not watching, was wearing inappropriate footwear, was distracted by a phone, or otherwise contributed to their own injury. Pushing the percentage above 50 is a standard defense playbook in premises cases.
The Claim Is Time-Barred
Texas sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims under Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. The evidence that controls the outcome — surveillance footage, cleaning logs, witness recall — disappears long before the two-year deadline runs.
What a Premises Case Actually Costs to Build
A serious premises liability case has investigation costs that most clients don’t anticipate. These costs are part of why contingency-fee firms screen premises cases more carefully than vehicle cases.
Investigation and Expert Costs Common to Premises Cases
- Evidence preservation letters sent within days, before surveillance footage is overwritten
- Engineering and human factors experts retained in fall cases involving stairs, lighting, or flooring
- Security industry experts retained in negligent security cases to evaluate reasonable measures
- Forensic crime analysis in cases involving prior incidents on the property
- Medical record collection and life care planning for serious injuries with long-term consequences
What Contingency Representation Means for Your Case
We take Austin premises cases on a contingency basis, meaning the firm advances the costs and absorbs them if the case does not result in a recovery. That structure also makes us direct in early evaluations.
A premises case that does not have the evidence to prove notice, the documentation to defeat an open-and-obvious defense, or the underlying facts to establish foreseeability is not a case we will take. Saying that early is more honest than running a weak case for two years and then closing it.
If you want a real evaluation rather than a sales pitch, call (800) 488-7840 for a free case review.
FAQ for Austin Premises Liability
Does Texas Have an “Open and Obvious” Defense?
Yes, and it is one of the most common reasons premises claims fail at summary judgment. When a hazard would have been apparent to a reasonable person, Texas law generally relieves the property owner of the duty to warn or protect against it. The necessary-use exception can overcome the rule when the invitee had no realistic choice but to encounter the danger, but the exception is fact-specific and narrowly applied.
Can I Sue an Apartment Complex for an Assault That Happened on the Property?
Possibly, depending on the foreseeability of the crime under the Timberwalk factors. Courts look at whether similar crimes had occurred on or near the property recently, how frequent and severe they were, and whether the property owner had reason to anticipate the harm.
Apartment complexes with a documented pattern of prior assaults, robberies, or break-ins are the most exposed to negligent security claims.
What Is the Difference Between Premises Liability and Ordinary Negligence?
Premises liability is a specific doctrine that applies when the injury results from a condition of the property itself. Ordinary negligence applies when the injury results from an activity. The distinction matters because premises liability has different duty rules and a more demanding proof structure.
Some cases involve both — a slip caused by an employee mopping (activity) versus a slip caused by a spill left unattended (condition).
How Long Do I Have to File a Texas Premises Liability Lawsuit?
Two years from the date of the injury, under Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. The clock does not pause while you are recovering or negotiating with the property owner’s insurer. Critical evidence, especially surveillance footage and witness recall, disappears long before the two-year deadline.
Before You Settle, Find Out Whether You Actually Have a Case
The hard part of a Texas premises liability claim is that the answer to “do I have a case” is genuinely uncertain at the start. Visitor status, notice, the open-and-obvious doctrine, and the foreseeability of any underlying crime all need to be evaluated against actual evidence — not against assumptions about the law.
If you were hurt on someone else’s property in Texas, the value of an early consultation is not a guarantee of recovery. It is a real evaluation of whether the doctrine works in your favor and whether the case is worth building.
Call (800) 488-7840 for a case review.