What's the difference between an invitee and a licensee, and why does it matter?

It changes what duty the property owner owes you. An invitee is someone on the property for the owner's business benefit — a customer at a store, a guest at a hotel. The owner owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to inspect for and warn of dangers. A licensee is someone present with the owner's permission but not for the owner's benefit — typically a social guest. The owner owes licensees a more limited duty, generally to warn of known dangers. The status determination shapes the standard of care the case turns on.

The injury was caused by a third party's criminal act. Can the property owner still be liable under HB 1419?

Yes, but Texas HB 1419 (2023) raised the bar. The statute applies a multi-factor foreseeability analysis to negligent-security cases — proximity in time and space of prior crimes, frequency of similar crimes, similarity of the prior crimes to the one that caused the injury. Owners can no longer be liable solely on a general 'high-crime area' showing. The case turns on building the prior-incident foreseeability record specifically tied to the property and the type of crime.

What evidence do I need to gather in the first 48 hours?

Photographs of the hazard before it gets cleaned up. The incident report — request a copy in writing if the property refuses verbally. Surveillance camera locations (the property owner's footage and any nearby business that might have a sight line). Witness names and contact info. Any maintenance, cleaning, or repair logs that get referenced. Statements from employees or management acknowledging the condition — written down with the time and the person's name.

Does Texas's comparative fault rule apply to premises cases?

Yes. Premises cases run on the same §33.001 comparative responsibility framework as auto cases. The defense will routinely argue you should have seen the hazard, that you weren't paying attention, that you should have been wearing different shoes. Documenting the hazard's visibility — lighting, sight lines, distractions, signage — answers the comparative-fault attack.

What if I was technically trespassing?

Property owners owe trespassers a much narrower duty under Texas law — generally no liability except for willful or wanton conduct, with the attractive-nuisance exception for child trespassers (Texas adopted Restatement 2d Torts §339). Adult trespassing cases are difficult. Cases involving children injured by an attractive condition (pools, construction equipment, abandoned structures) sit in a different category and turn on the property owner's foreseeability of child access.

How do dram-shop cases relate to premises liability?

They overlap when an over-served patron leaves an establishment and causes harm to someone on or near the premises. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code §2.02 (dram shop) creates separate liability for the establishment that served an obviously intoxicated patron. Dram shop cases routinely run alongside premises liability or negligent security cases in entertainment-district fact patterns.

Austin Premises Liability Lawyer

On this page

Do you have a premises liability case?

If you were injured on someone else's property in Travis or Williamson County — a fall at a store, a parking-garage incident, a hotel injury, a negligent-security event in an entertainment district — and the property owner's failure to maintain safe conditions caused or contributed to your injury, you may have a case. Premises cases turn on a different evidence base than auto crashes: the property owner's knowledge, the duration of the hazardous condition, the foreseeability of harm. The two-year deadline under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §16.003 is the same; the work in the first weeks looks different.

We handle premises liability and negligent-security representation across Austin and the surrounding counties. The pages that follow walk through the Texas-specific status hierarchy that governs duty of care, the HB 1419 foreseeability framework for negligent-security cases, the geography that shapes where these cases concentrate, and the process from first call through resolution.

What to do in the next 24 hours

Before anything else, before calling any attorney:

Photograph the hazard before it gets cleaned up. Within minutes if possible. The wet floor, the broken step, the missing handrail, the inadequate lighting, the unsecured cable. Property owners clean, repair, or alter the condition fast — sometimes within an hour. Photos taken at the scene rarely get retaken.
Sketch the hazard's location and dimensions, with the time of day you went through. The key question in these cases is how long the hazard was there before you encountered it. Lawyers call that constructive knowledge. Your sketch and the time anchor that timeline.
Get the incident report in writing. Request a copy on the spot. Many properties refuse verbally; refusal in writing is itself useful. Get the name of the manager you spoke with, the time, and what they said.
Identify all surveillance camera locations. The property's own cameras and any nearby business that might have a sight line. Footage typically overwrites within 30-90 days. Preservation requests go out the first week.
Keep the shoes you were wearing in a sealed bag. Friction analysis on the soles is destructive — the test damages what it measures — and it has to start from the actual shoes that crossed the floor, not a similar pair. Don't discard or wash them.
Get every witness's contact info. Names, phone numbers, what they saw, where they were.
If a manager or employee said anything to you about the hazard, write it down with the time and the person's name before you leave the property. Informal admissions ("we knew about that," "I told them to clean it up") carry weight, but only with attribution.

None of the above requires an attorney. It costs nothing. It is the single most useful thing you can do in the first day.

What makes a Texas premises case different

Three frameworks shape every premises liability case in Texas, and the framework determines the strategy.

Invitee, licensee, trespasser status hierarchy. Texas common law assigns one of three statuses to anyone on a property, and the status sets the duty of care the owner owes. Invitees (customers, business visitors) are owed the most: a duty of reasonable care to inspect for and warn of dangerous conditions the owner knew or should have known about. Licensees (social guests, permitted users) are owed less: a duty to warn of known dangers and to refrain from gross negligence. Trespassers are owed the least: only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton harm, with the attractive-nuisance exception for child trespassers under Restatement 2d Torts §339, which Texas has adopted. Establishing status is the first analytical step in every case.

Constructive knowledge under Corbin v. Safeway. Texas case law allows a plaintiff to prove the property owner's knowledge of a hazard by showing the condition existed long enough that a reasonably attentive owner would have discovered it. Surveillance footage, cleaning schedules, employee logs, and witness testimony build the duration timeline. The case typically turns on this constructive-knowledge proof rather than direct admissions.

HB 1419 foreseeability framework for negligent-security cases. Texas HB 1419 (2023, effective September 1, 2023) restructured the analysis when a third party's criminal act caused injury on the property. The statute requires a multi-factor foreseeability test: proximity in time and space of prior crimes, frequency of similar crimes, similarity of those prior crimes to the one at issue. A general "high-crime area" showing no longer suffices. Building the prior-incident record specifically tied to the property — police calls, prior incidents at the same location, similar crime patterns — is the load-bearing case work in negligent-security litigation post-HB 1419.

PIP, UM, and UIM coverage from auto policies don't apply here. Recovery comes from the property owner's general liability insurance, the umbrella policy, or — in negligent-security cases — sometimes from the security contractor's separate policy.

Texas law that governs recovery

The framework most often invoked in Texas premises liability cases:

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003 — two-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.001 — modified comparative responsibility; recovery barred at 51% fault.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §41.008 — caps on exemplary damages.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §95 — narrow chapter governing certain construction-site claims against property owners (rare exception).
HB 1419 (2023) — multi-factor foreseeability framework for negligent-security cases involving third-party criminal acts.
Restatement (Second) of Torts §339 — attractive nuisance doctrine, adopted in Texas case law for child trespasser cases.
Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983) — and subsequent decisions establishing the constructive-knowledge framework.
Tex. Alco. Bev. Code §2.02 — dram-shop liability, often layered onto premises cases involving over-served patrons.

For commercial property owner-occupier distinctions, Texas case law on lessor/lessee duty allocation governs.

Where Austin premises cases happen

Premises liability case density in the Austin metro tracks the categories of property and the types of injury risk each presents.

The Domain (north Austin retail-residential mixed use). High foot-traffic retail with significant slip-and-fall and parking-garage cases. Travis County District Court venue.

Sixth Street, Rainey Street, Red River entertainment districts. The bulk of the Austin negligent-security caseload. Bar-property cases, dram-shop overlap, and post-HB 1419 foreseeability disputes concentrate here.

East Austin commercial corridor (Cesar Chavez, East 6th, Manor Road). Restaurant and bar density generates premises and dram-shop fact patterns.

Round Rock Premium Outlets and surrounding retail. Williamson County District Court venue. Slip-and-fall, escalator and elevator incidents, parking-area cases.

Cedar Park large-format retail (1890 Ranch, Lakeline Mall area). Williamson County. Predominantly customer-injury cases; fewer negligent-security claims than the Austin urban core.

Hotel and short-term-rental properties downtown. Mixed venue depending on ownership structure. Slip-and-fall, balcony incidents, security-related cases.

Travis County District Court handles most Travis County cases. Williamson County District Court handles cases from the northern retail corridor.

What is recoverable

Categories of recovery in Texas premises liability cases, subject to comparative fault and the §41.008 cap on exemplary damages:

Past medical expenses subject to Haygood paid-or-incurred.
Future medical care projected via life-care plan when ongoing treatment is required.
Past lost wages.
Future lost earning capacity.
Pain and suffering — past and future.
Mental anguish — typically requires evidence beyond the injury itself.
Disfigurement and physical impairment.
Exemplary (punitive) damages — only on a finding of gross negligence, capped under §41.008.
Loss of consortium for the spouse in catastrophic cases.

What the process looks like

Premises case representation runs in four overlapping phases.

Phase 1: investigation and evidence preservation (weeks 1-3). Preservation letter to the property owner covering surveillance footage, incident reports, cleaning logs, employee schedules, and prior-incident records. Independent inspection of the hazard if it remains. Witness statements. Treating-doctor records.

Phase 2: medical and damages development (months 1-12). Treatment continues. Damages workup. Vocational and life-care planning if catastrophic injuries. Insurance disclosure tracking. For negligent-security cases: prior-incident research at the property and similar properties.

Phase 3: pre-suit negotiation OR filing (months 6-18). Cases that resolve pre-suit do so in this window. Cases that don't get filed in the appropriate district court (Travis or Williamson). Discovery, depositions, and the designation of retained witnesses on industry standards (retail-floor maintenance, security industry practices, building-code compliance).

Phase 4: trial OR settlement (months 14-28). Mediation typically 60-90 days before trial. The trial calendar drives meaningful settlement leverage.

Why this firm

Direct attorney access. When you call us, you reach an attorney, not an intake coordinator routing you to a paralegal. Anselmo Aguirre handles your case personally — intake, investigation, negotiation, and trial.

Smaller caseload than the firms that advertise on the freeway. We turn down cases for conflict, for fit, and when another firm is a better match for the facts. The cases we take get attention, not assembly-line treatment.

Real Texas-specific work. Statutes by section, hospitals by name, courts by location. The pages on this site are the firm's own analysis, reviewed by Anselmo Aguirre — not borrowed from a content mill.

Frequently asked questions

What's the difference between an invitee and a licensee, and why does it matter?: It changes what duty the property owner owes you. An invitee is someone on the property for the owner's business benefit — a customer at a store, a guest at a hotel. The owner owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to inspect for and warn of dangers. A licensee is someone present with the owner's permission but not for the owner's benefit — typically a social guest. The owner owes licensees a more limited duty, generally to warn of known dangers. The status determination shapes the standard of care the case turns on.
My fall happened at a store. Does the store have to admit they knew the floor was wet?: No — but Texas case law gives plaintiffs a path. Under Corbin v. Safeway and the Texas Supreme Court's later decisions, you can prove the owner had constructive knowledge of the hazard if the condition was present long enough that a reasonably attentive owner would have discovered it. The key question is how long the hazard was there. Lawyers call that constructive knowledge. Surveillance footage, employee schedules, cleaning logs, and witness testimony build the timeline.
The injury was caused by a third party's criminal act. Can the property owner still be liable under HB 1419?: Yes, but Texas HB 1419 (2023) raised the bar. The statute applies a multi-factor foreseeability analysis to negligent-security cases — proximity in time and space of prior crimes, frequency of similar crimes, similarity of the prior crimes to the one that caused the injury. Owners can no longer be liable solely on a general 'high-crime area' showing. The case turns on building the prior-incident foreseeability record specifically tied to the property and the type of crime.
What evidence do I need to gather in the first 48 hours?: Photographs of the hazard before it gets cleaned up. The incident report — request a copy in writing if the property refuses verbally. Surveillance camera locations (the property owner's footage and any nearby business that might have a sight line). Witness names and contact info. Any maintenance, cleaning, or repair logs that get referenced. Statements from employees or management acknowledging the condition — written down with the time and the person's name.
Does Texas's comparative fault rule apply to premises cases?: Yes. Premises cases run on the same §33.001 comparative responsibility framework as auto cases. The defense will routinely argue you should have seen the hazard, that you weren't paying attention, that you should have been wearing different shoes. Documenting the hazard's visibility — lighting, sight lines, distractions, signage — answers the comparative-fault attack.
What if I was technically trespassing?: Property owners owe trespassers a much narrower duty under Texas law — generally no liability except for willful or wanton conduct, with the attractive-nuisance exception for child trespassers (Texas adopted Restatement 2d Torts §339). Adult trespassing cases are difficult. Cases involving children injured by an attractive condition (pools, construction equipment, abandoned structures) sit in a different category and turn on the property owner's foreseeability of child access.
How do dram-shop cases relate to premises liability?: They overlap when an over-served patron leaves an establishment and causes harm to someone on or near the premises. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code §2.02 (dram shop) creates separate liability for the establishment that served an obviously intoxicated patron. Dram shop cases routinely run alongside premises liability or negligent security cases in entertainment-district fact patterns.