Fort Worth Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Workplace Slip and Fall
One driver slipped and fell at her place of employment, Kroger Signature Supermarket in Fort Worth. The accident occurred behind the deli counter after the area had been cleaned and mopped. The driver claimed that she suffered a traumatic brain injury, as well as anxiety and depression. The driver sued the parent company of the supermarket for an unsafe workplace, claiming that it failed to properly train employees and have a policy in place for properly warning employees of the wet condition of the floor. The defense contended that cleaning procedures were routine maintenance and that warning the driver was unnecessary. The defense also argued that caution cones would have created a tripping hazard.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Defense
- Amount
- Undisclosed
- County
- Tarrant County, TX
- Resolved
- 2015
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Head/Brain Injury
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence, Loss of Services, Traumatic Brain Injury, Anxiety
Case Overview
A deli clerk filed a lawsuit after she slipped and fell at her workplace, a Kroger Signature Supermarket in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 2011. The incident occurred behind the deli counter, an area that had been cleaned and mopped prior to her arrival. The plaintiff claimed she suffered a traumatic brain injury, anxiety, and depression after striking her head on the floor. She alleged that the supermarket's parent company, Kroger Texas LP, failed to provide a safe workplace by not properly training employees or having a policy to warn of wet floor conditions. The plaintiff's husband also sued for loss of services. The case was filed in United States District Court as Kroger Texas LP did not carry Texas workers' compensation.
The plaintiff presented medical evidence of a concussion, scalp hematoma, and cervical neck sprain immediately following the fall, with subsequent diagnoses of a traumatic brain injury, impaired memory and attention, and chronic pain. Her expert neurologist testified that the injuries were causally related to the accident and would prevent her from working again. The plaintiff sought $2.6 million in damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, and economic losses, including over $300,000 for future medical care and over $500,000 for lost earnings and household services.
The defense contended that routine cleaning procedures were followed, and the plaintiff, being aware of such maintenance, did not require additional warnings. The defendant argued that placing caution cones in the active deli area, which was considered a kitchen, would have created a greater tripping hazard for employees. The defense also asserted that all employees, including the plaintiff, were trained to be aware of their surroundings, and that the plaintiff was wearing required non-slip shoes and her workstation had a non-slip floor cover. Additionally, the defense claimed the plaintiff had pre-existing cervical and lumbar spine injuries from a 1998 motor vehicle accident, suggesting her medical experts had not fully reviewed her prior medical history.
After an eight-day trial and one hour of deliberation, a jury returned an 8-0 verdict in favor of the defense. The jury found that Kroger Texas LP was not negligent in the plaintiff's injury, resulting in no award of damages.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome is within expected ranges
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want results like this for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Tarrant County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
One driver was stopped at a red light when their car was hit by another vehicle. The driver who was hit claimed injuries to their back, neck, and shoulder. The passenger in the car also claimed an injury. The case involved an insurance claim after the at-fault driver was uninsured.
One driver stopped their vehicle on a highway when the other driver struck them from behind at a high speed. The impact caused the driver to hit their head and briefly lose consciousness. The injured driver claimed the accident caused a brain injury, preventing them from completing college studies, and also affected their ability to care for their young son. The other driver admitted to the collision but disputed the extent and cause of the injuries.
One driver was stopped on a road when their car was struck from behind by another car. This initial impact propelled the stopped car into a third vehicle. The driver of the first car claimed injuries to their back and neck, seeking damages for medical expenses and pain.
One driver was traveling in Beaumont when their vehicle struck the rear end of a pickup truck. The occupants of the car claimed they suffered injuries. The driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and was never identified. The occupants sued their own insurer for underinsured-motorist benefits. The case proceeded to trial regarding one occupant's claim, with the defense arguing inconsistencies in her account of the accident.
One driver was stopped at a light when the vehicle behind them struck their pickup truck. The driver of the second vehicle claimed the pickup truck driver swerved in front of them and braked suddenly, causing the collision. The driver of the second vehicle alleged injuries to their knee and spine. The defense questioned the credibility of the driver's account and pointed to inconsistencies in their statements.