In McCune v. Meijer, 156 Mich App 561, 562; 402 NW2d 6 (1986), the plaintiff indicated that he did not see the oil spill before he fell. Id. The plaintiff described the actual puddle of oil that caused him to slip as rather small, but stated that an oil stain 2 1/2 feet in diameter surrounded it. Id. The plaintiff's theory was that, because the oil stain was much larger than the actual puddle of oil, the stain must have resulted from the evaporation of the oil. Id. The plaintiff argued that, given the naturally slow rate of evaporation, the oil spill had to have existed for a period significant enough for the defendant to have discovered it. Id., 562-563. The Court held that, because the plaintiff's theory was completely unsupported by expert testimony, it amounted to no more than sheer speculation and conjecture, and thus, was not sufficient to show constructive notice. Id., 563.