San Angelo Woman Sues Dollar General for $1 Million

Gonzalez's lawsuit includes claims of premises liability, general negligence, vicarious liability for employee actions, and negligent hiring, supervision, or management. She is seeking damages of no more than $1,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, to cover medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other related costs.

Dollar General, a Kentucky-incorporated company with its principal place of business in Tennessee, swiftly moved to remove the case from state court to federal jurisdiction on October 15, 2025, citing diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The removal was filed in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, but the defendant simultaneously challenged venue there, arguing the case belongs in the Northern District due to the incident's location in San Angelo. Court records indicate the case has since been docketed in the San Angelo Division of the Northern District, aligning with the accident site's federal jurisdiction.

In its answer filed the same day as the removal, Dollar General admitted several key facts: the incident date and location, that Gonzalez was an invitee, the absence of a "wet floor" sign at the time of the fall, and that an employee cleaned the area only after being notified. The company also confirmed it owns and operates the store under its sole control. However, Dollar General firmly denied all allegations of liability, negligence, or wrongdoing. It rejected claims of vicarious liability and negligent oversight, stating that it "denies all of the allegations contained in this Paragraph and all of its subparts."

The retailer raised several affirmative defenses, including:

• Comparative Negligence: Arguing that Gonzalez's own actions may have contributed to the incident, and requesting the court determine percentages of responsibility under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
• Unavoidable Accident: Claiming the fall was unforeseeable and not caused by any acts or omissions on its part.
• Paid or Incurred Medical Expenses: Invoking Texas law to limit any recovery for medical costs to amounts actually paid or incurred, not billed amounts, per Haygood v. Escabedo (2011).
• Failure to Mitigate: Asserting that Gonzalez had a duty under the Affordable Care Act and common law to purchase health insurance by March 31, 2014, which could cap her medical damage claims to co-pays and deductibles.

Dollar General also dismissed Gonzalez's embedded discovery requests—such as interrogatories, requests for production, and admissions—as moot and premature under federal rules, given the case's removal.

Representing Gonzalez is attorney Daniela Labinoti of the Law Firm of Daniela Labinoti, P.C., in El Paso. Dollar General is defended by Robert E. Valdez and Brenda Montoya of Valdez & Treviño Attorneys at Law, P.C., in San Antonio.

This lawsuit comes amid a broader pattern of slip-and-fall claims against discount retailers like Dollar General, which operates over 19,000 stores nationwide and has faced similar suits in Texas and beyond for alleged safety lapses. The case remains in early stages, with potential for settlement or further motions.

Federal Judge John Wesley Hendrix, who is based in Lubbock but runs the federal courtroom here on occasion, is presiding over the case. If the parties cannot settle this case prior, the jury trial date is set for December 14, 2026 in San Angelo's federal courthouse.

Neither party responded to requests for comment by press time. Court proceedings are open to the public, and updates can be followed via the federal docket system.