The Supreme Court of Texas heard arguments in AGB v. Peterson over whether a grocery store had constructive notice of a puddle that led to a customer's fall. Petitioners' counsel and the court debated whether prior roof leaks recorded elsewhere in the store provided sufficient evidence to send the case to a jury.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jefferson, told the justices the record contains "no evidence, actual or constructive, that H‑E‑B had notice of a premises condition that caused Peterson's injury." He described bench-book exhibits showing refrigeration units clustered about 40 feet from the toy aisle and argued the repair and inspection records relate to those refrigeration locations rather than to the toy aisle where the fall occurred.

Respondent counsel, Mr. Sloan, urged the court to view the evidence in context. He pointed to photographs and repair entries in the bench book and to the store incident report that identifies rain as the source of the substance on the floor. "The incident report drafted that night by the store manager says that the source of the substance was rain," Sloan said, and he argued that Ms. Peterson's testimony that she saw water dripping from the ceiling combined with the report and surveillance creates a fact question for a jury.

During extended questioning, the justices pressed both sides on timing and causation. The bench noted a surveillance time stamp in the record and discussed whether a puddle could have formed from repeated drips over hours or, alternatively, from a sudden influx of water. Counsel debated whether repeated leak reports across a 60,000‑square‑foot store meaningfully connect to a puddle in one particular aisle. Petitioners emphasized the absence of evidence tying prior leaks to the toy aisle and warned against imposing a rule that would require near‑constant inspection of large premises; respondents emphasized the combination of the incident report, repair history, and testimony as supporting at least a jury question about notice.

Both sides cited prior decisions (including Rodriguez and later appellate decisions) as the court explored whether to require a showing of spatial proximity between prior leaks and the hazard or to permit circumstantial inferences about notice based on timing and patterns of repairs. Counsel also disputed how the store's inspection protocols and repair patches reflected awareness and remedial action.

After argument and questioning concluded, counsel told the court the case was submitted. The bench announced a short recess before the next argument.

The court’s opinion and any change to the standard for constructive notice may affect how premises‑liability claims are handled in large retail facilities with dispersed maintenance issues.