Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you slip and fall in an apartment building's hallway because it's wet. You sue the apartment complex, claiming they were careless. However, to win, you need to show they knew or should have known the floor was wet and didn't do anything about it. If you can't prove this, like showing they had notice of the wetness, the court might dismiss your case, as happened here.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the landlord, holding the tenant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The plaintiff did not present evidence that the landlord created the wet condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. This reinforces the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate notice, not just the existence of a hazard, in premises liability cases, particularly in common areas.

For Law Students

This case tests premises liability, specifically the duty owed by a landlord to a tenant in common areas. The key issue is whether the landlord had notice of the dangerous condition (wet floor). The court affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of notice, highlighting the necessity of proving actual or constructive notice to establish negligence, rather than just the occurrence of an injury.

Newsroom Summary

An apartment tenant's lawsuit over a slip-and-fall injury was dismissed, with a court ruling the tenant didn't prove the complex knew about the wet floor. The decision underscores that injured tenants must show landlords had notice of hazards, not just that an accident happened.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the tenant provided sufficient notice to the landlord under the Texas Property Code to trigger the landlord's duty to repair.Whether the landlord made a diligent effort to repair the conditions after receiving notice.

Rule Statements

"A landlord's duty to repair arises only if the tenant has given the required notice and the condition affects the physical health and safety of an ordinary tenant."

"The notice must be specific enough to inform the landlord of the condition requiring repair."

Scenario: You live in an apartment complex and slip on a wet spot in the hallway that wasn't marked or cleaned up. You get injured and want to sue the apartment management.

Your Rights: You have the right to sue for negligence if the apartment management failed to maintain safe common areas. However, you generally need to prove that the management knew or should have known about the wet condition and had a reasonable opportunity to fix it before your accident.

What To Do: If you are injured in a common area due to a hazardous condition, document the scene with photos and videos if possible. Gather witness information. Seek medical attention and keep records. Consult with a personal injury attorney to understand if you can prove the landlord had notice of the hazard.

Is it legal for my apartment complex to be held responsible if I slip and fall on a wet floor in a common area?

It depends. The apartment complex can be held responsible if you can prove they were negligent. This means showing they either created the wet condition, knew about it and didn't fix it, or should have known about it (e.g., it had been there a long time) and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent your injury. Simply slipping on a wet floor isn't enough; you need to show the complex's fault.

This principle generally applies across most US jurisdictions, but specific notice requirements and burdens of proof can vary by state law.

For Apartment Tenants

Tenants injured in common areas must now be more diligent in proving that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the hazard that caused their injury. Simply showing a dangerous condition existed is insufficient to win a negligence claim.

For Landlords and Property Managers

This ruling reinforces that landlords are not automatically liable for all injuries occurring on their property. Tenants must meet a specific burden of proof regarding notice of the hazard, providing some protection against frivolous lawsuits.

Q: What is Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC about?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC is a case decided by Texas Court of Appeals on February 10, 2026. It involves Contract.

Q: What court decided Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC decided?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC was decided on February 10, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The citation for Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What type of case is Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC is classified as a "Contract" case. This describes the nature of the legal dispute at issue.

Q: What is the case name and what was the core dispute in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The case is Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC. The core dispute involved a negligence claim filed by Stacie Ann Shakir against Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC after she slipped and fell on a wet floor in a common area of the apartment complex. The legal question was whether the apartment complex was negligent in maintaining the common area.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC case?

The parties involved were the plaintiff, Stacie Ann Shakir, who alleged she was injured due to negligence, and the defendant, Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC, the owner and operator of the apartment complex where the incident occurred.

Q: Which court decided the Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC case?

The case was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp). The initial decision was made by a trial court, which granted summary judgment for the defendant, and the appeal was heard by the appellate court.

Q: When did the incident leading to the Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC case occur?

The provided summary does not specify the exact date of the incident where Stacie Ann Shakir slipped and fell on the wet floor. However, the legal proceedings and the appellate court's decision occurred after the initial trial court ruling.

Q: What was the outcome of the trial court's decision in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC. This means the trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing Shakir's negligence claim before it could go to a full trial.

Q: What was the appellate court's final decision in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. This means the appellate court agreed with the trial court's ruling that Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC was entitled to summary judgment and that Stacie Ann Shakir's lawsuit should be dismissed.

Q: Is Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC published?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC. Key holdings: The court held that a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep common areas of an apartment complex in a safe condition for the use of tenants. This duty includes warning of or making safe any condition that the landlord knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of harm to tenants.; The court held that to establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition that caused the injury and that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against the condition.; The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor prior to her fall. The plaintiff's testimony that she did not see any "wet floor" signs or "wet floor" mats did not establish that the defendant knew or should have known about the condition.; The court held that the plaintiff's argument that the defendant should have had a "wet floor" policy was speculative and not supported by evidence. The plaintiff did not present evidence of industry standards or common practices that would require such a policy.; The court held that without evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the dangerous condition, the plaintiff could not establish a breach of duty, and therefore, summary judgment for the defendant was proper..

Q: Why is Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC important?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This case reinforces the principle that plaintiffs in premises liability cases must demonstrate the property owner's actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition to succeed. It highlights the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving negligence when relying solely on the existence of a hazard without evidence of the owner's awareness or opportunity to correct it, particularly in summary judgment proceedings.

Q: What precedent does Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC set?

Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep common areas of an apartment complex in a safe condition for the use of tenants. This duty includes warning of or making safe any condition that the landlord knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of harm to tenants. (2) The court held that to establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition that caused the injury and that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against the condition. (3) The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor prior to her fall. The plaintiff's testimony that she did not see any "wet floor" signs or "wet floor" mats did not establish that the defendant knew or should have known about the condition. (4) The court held that the plaintiff's argument that the defendant should have had a "wet floor" policy was speculative and not supported by evidence. The plaintiff did not present evidence of industry standards or common practices that would require such a policy. (5) The court held that without evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the dangerous condition, the plaintiff could not establish a breach of duty, and therefore, summary judgment for the defendant was proper.

Q: What are the key holdings in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

1. The court held that a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep common areas of an apartment complex in a safe condition for the use of tenants. This duty includes warning of or making safe any condition that the landlord knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of harm to tenants. 2. The court held that to establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition that caused the injury and that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against the condition. 3. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor prior to her fall. The plaintiff's testimony that she did not see any "wet floor" signs or "wet floor" mats did not establish that the defendant knew or should have known about the condition. 4. The court held that the plaintiff's argument that the defendant should have had a "wet floor" policy was speculative and not supported by evidence. The plaintiff did not present evidence of industry standards or common practices that would require such a policy. 5. The court held that without evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the dangerous condition, the plaintiff could not establish a breach of duty, and therefore, summary judgment for the defendant was proper.

Q: What cases are related to Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

Precedent cases cited or related to Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC: Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983); Scott v. Naumann, 463 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Q: What legal standard did the appellate court apply when reviewing the summary judgment in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The appellate court applied the standard for reviewing a summary judgment, which requires determining if the defendant presented sufficient evidence to negate at least one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. The court found that Shakir failed to present enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Providence's alleged negligence.

Q: What did Stacie Ann Shakir need to prove to win her negligence case against Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

To win her negligence case, Shakir would have needed to prove duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Specifically, she had to show that Providence had a duty to maintain the common area safely, that Providence breached that duty by allowing the floor to be wet and unsafe, that this breach caused her fall, and that she suffered damages as a result.

Q: What was the key legal issue regarding Providence's alleged negligence in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The key legal issue was whether Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC had actual or constructive notice of the wet condition on the floor and failed to take reasonable steps to remedy it or warn its tenants. Shakir needed to show Providence knew or should have known about the hazard and did nothing.

Q: What kind of evidence did Stacie Ann Shakir fail to provide to support her claim?

Shakir failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. This likely means she did not present evidence showing Providence had actual knowledge of the wet floor, or that the condition existed for such a length of time that Providence should have discovered it through reasonable inspection.

Q: Did the court in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC consider whether the apartment complex created the dangerous condition?

While not explicitly detailed in the summary, a plaintiff typically must present evidence that the defendant either created the condition, had actual notice of it, or that the condition existed for a sufficient duration that the defendant should have discovered it through reasonable care. Shakir's failure suggests she did not provide such evidence.

Q: What does 'summary judgment' mean in the context of this case?

Summary judgment is a procedural device used to dispose of a case without a full trial when there is no genuine dispute over the material facts. In this case, the trial court granted it because it determined that, based on the evidence presented, no reasonable jury could find Providence negligent, and thus, Providence was entitled to win as a matter of law.

Q: What is the burden of proof for a plaintiff in a negligence case like Stacie Ann Shakir's?

The plaintiff, Stacie Ann Shakir, bore the burden of proving each element of her negligence claim: duty, breach, causation, and damages. When facing a motion for summary judgment, she had to present evidence that created a genuine issue of material fact for at least one of these elements to avoid dismissal.

Q: What legal doctrines govern landlord responsibility for common areas?

Landlord responsibility for common areas is typically governed by premises liability law, which requires landlords to exercise reasonable care to keep these areas safe for tenants and their guests. This includes inspecting for and repairing dangerous conditions and warning of non-obvious hazards.

Q: How does Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC affect me?

This case reinforces the principle that plaintiffs in premises liability cases must demonstrate the property owner's actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition to succeed. It highlights the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving negligence when relying solely on the existence of a hazard without evidence of the owner's awareness or opportunity to correct it, particularly in summary judgment proceedings. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How does the ruling in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC affect tenants' rights?

The ruling emphasizes that tenants must provide specific evidence of a landlord's negligence when claiming injury from a condition on the property. It suggests that simply falling in a common area due to a wet floor may not be enough; tenants need to show the landlord had notice or created the hazard.

Q: What practical steps should tenants take after an injury on rental property?

After an injury on rental property, tenants should immediately document the condition that caused the injury, take photos, report the incident to management in writing, and seek medical attention. Gathering evidence of notice, such as when the condition was reported or how long it existed, is crucial for any potential legal claim.

Q: What does this ruling mean for property management companies like Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

This ruling reinforces the importance of diligent property maintenance and inspection protocols for property management companies. It highlights the need to document regular inspections and prompt responses to reported hazards to defend against negligence claims.

Q: Are there any specific safety measures apartment complexes must take after this ruling?

While this ruling doesn't create new specific safety mandates, it underscores the existing duty of care. Property managers should ensure clear policies for inspecting common areas, promptly addressing spills or hazards, and using warning signs when necessary to mitigate risks and potential liability.

Q: How might this case impact future slip-and-fall lawsuits in Texas apartment complexes?

This case may encourage property owners to be more rigorous in their maintenance and inspection logs, as it shows a plaintiff must present concrete evidence of notice. Future plaintiffs may need to provide more detailed evidence regarding the duration of a hazard or direct communication with management about it.

Q: Does this case set a new precedent for landlord liability in Texas?

This case affirms existing principles of negligence law and the requirements for overcoming a summary judgment motion in Texas. It doesn't appear to establish a new precedent but rather applies established legal standards to the facts presented, emphasizing the plaintiff's evidentiary burden.

Q: How does this case compare to other landmark slip-and-fall cases involving landlords?

Similar to other premises liability cases, this ruling focuses on the landlord's duty to maintain safe common areas and the tenant's burden to prove negligence. The outcome often hinges on whether the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, a common theme in such litigation.

Q: What was the docket number in Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC?

The docket number for Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC is 01-25-00295-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Stacie Ann Shakir v. Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did Stacie Ann Shakir's case reach the Texas Court of Appeals?

Shakir's case reached the Texas Court of Appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC. Shakir, as the aggrieved party, appealed this decision to the appellate court, seeking to overturn the dismissal of her lawsuit.

Q: What is the significance of 'affirming' a trial court's decision in an appeal?

Affirming a trial court's decision means the appellate court reviewed the lower court's ruling and found no legal errors. In this case, the Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's grant of summary judgment, meaning Shakir's lawsuit was ultimately unsuccessful at the appellate level.

Q: What happens if a plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence for a summary judgment motion?

If a plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact in response to a summary judgment motion, the court will grant the motion. This results in the dismissal of the plaintiff's case without a trial, as occurred with Stacie Ann Shakir's claim against Providence at Memorial Apartments LLC.

Q: Could Stacie Ann Shakir have appealed the appellate court's decision further?

Potentially, Shakir could have sought further review by filing a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. However, the Texas Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it hears, and it typically selects cases with significant legal questions or conflicts in lower court decisions.