By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Fell at a 7-Eleven?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
Beverly Law is not affiliated with 7-Eleven, Inc., Speedway or Stripes.
Where people fall at 7-Eleven
- Drink stations. Customers fill their own coffee, fountain drinks and frozen drinks, and spills land on the floor in front of the machines.
- Ice and coolers. Ice from the bagged-ice chest and condensation in front of cooler doors.
- The entrance. Rainwater tracked in with no mat or wet-floor sign.
- Mopping. Floors mopped during business hours with no warning.
- Outside. Broken curbs, wheel stops and uneven pavement, covered on our parking lot page.
What you must prove in each state
California. The store must have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. Evidence that the area had not been inspected within a reasonable time can support an inference that the store should have found it (Ortega v. Kmart). You do not have to prove exactly how long the spill was there.
Texas. The elements are the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge, an unreasonable risk, failure to use reasonable care, and causation (Corbin v. Safeway; Keetch v. Kroger). Constructive knowledge usually requires proof of how long the hazard existed, the “time-notice rule” (Wal-Mart v. Reece). Corbin let a jury find liability from a store’s own recognition of a high risk at a self-service display, but the Texas Supreme Court later called that an exceptional case (Brookshire Grocery v. Taylor).
Washington. Normally you must show notice. But notice is not required when the nature of the business and its methods of operation make the unsafe condition reasonably foreseeable (Pimentel v. Roundup). Since 2021 that exception is not limited to self-service areas (Johnson v. Liquor & Cannabis Board). Self-serve drink stations fit this well.
Free 7-Eleven injury case review
Tell us what happened. We will tell you plainly whether there is a case and what to do next. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Reported 7-Eleven slip and fall cases
- Jones v. Southland Corp. (Los Angeles). A customer slipped on a greasy liquid on a 7-Eleven floor and injured his arm and hand. The California Bar Journal reported a $135,000 award in June 1999. Southland was 7-Eleven’s corporate name until 1999 (State Bar archive).
- Lizardo v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (Harris County, Texas, No. 2024-88077). Filed December 2024. The customer alleges he slipped on spilled coffee that had not been cleaned up or marked with a sign. Allegations only; no reported outcome (Southeast Texas Record).
What to do after a fall
- Photograph the floor before it is cleaned: the liquid, its size, footprints or cart tracks through it, and whether there was a sign.
- Look at your shoes and clothes. Coffee, soda syrup and dirty water leave marks that show what you slipped on.
- Ask for an incident report and the clerk’s name.
- Ask in writing for the video and the store’s cleaning or floor-check records. In Texas, video showing how long the spill sat there can make the case.
- See a doctor the same day if you can.
Deadlines and your share of fault
| State | Deadline to sue | Your own share of fault | Store’s notice of a hazard | Crime by a stranger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 2 years (CCP § 335.1) | Reduces the award, never bars it (Li v. Yellow Cab) | Actual or constructive notice; a missed inspection can support an inference of notice (Ortega v. Kmart) | Sliding scale: guards need high foreseeability, simple steps are owed when a threat is imminent (Ann M.; Delgado) |
| Texas | 2 years (CPRC § 16.003) | Barred if you are more than 50% responsible (CPRC § 33.001) | Proof of how long the hazard was there is usually required (Wal-Mart v. Reece) | Five factors: proximity, recency, frequency, similarity and publicity of prior crimes (Timberwalk) |
| Washington | 3 years (RCW 4.16.080(2)) | Reduces the award, never bars it (RCW 4.22.005) | No notice needed when the way the store operates makes the hazard foreseeable (Pimentel; Johnson, 2021) | Duty against imminent harm and reasonably foreseeable crime, decided in a case against a Tacoma 7-Eleven (Nivens) |
Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou.
Related pages
- 7-Eleven injury lawyer
- 7-Eleven parking lot and gas pump injuries
- 7-Eleven burn injury lawsuits
- Store slip and fall lawyer
- 7-Eleven storefront crash lawsuits
Common questions
Can I sue 7-Eleven for slipping on a spill?
Yes, if the store caused the spill, knew about it, or should have found it with reasonable inspection, and failed to clean it up or warn you.
Do I have to prove how long the spill was on the floor?
In Texas, usually yes. In California, a missed inspection can be enough to support an inference that the store should have known. In Washington, proof of notice can be excused when the store’s way of operating made the hazard foreseeable.
There was a wet floor sign. Do I still have a case?
It is harder, but not over. Where the sign was, whether it could be seen, and whether the hazard went beyond it all matter. In California and Washington, your own share of fault reduces what you recover rather than ending the claim.
How long do I have to sue?
Two years in California and Texas, three years in Washington.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
7-Eleven injury lawyer — Beverly Law
If you were hurt at a 7-Eleven, Speedway or Stripes in California, Texas or Washington, talk to an injury attorney. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Sources
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200
- Corbin v. Safeway Stores, 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983)
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992)
- Wal-Mart Stores v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002)
- Brookshire Grocery v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. 2006)
- Pimentel v. Roundup Co., 100 Wn.2d 39 (1983)
- Johnson v. Liquor & Cannabis Bd., 197 Wn.2d 605 (2021)
- California Bar Journal trial digest (June 1999)
- Southeast Texas Record, Lizardo v. 7-Eleven
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001
- RCW 4.16.080
- RCW 4.22.005
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 6, 2026.