Speer v. Pin Palace Bowling Alley
In Speer v. Pin Palace Bowling Alley, 599 So. 2d 1140 (Ala. 1992) the plaintiff had slipped and fallen in a substance that she had not seen and which could not be identified, by noting analogous cases:
"See, Brown v. Autry Greer & Sons, Inc., 551 So. 2d 1049 (Ala. 1989) (affirming a summary judgment for the defendant where the plaintiff presented no evidence to show that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the substance in question, or that the defendant was delinquent in not discovering and removing it);
Vargo v. Warehouse Groceries Mgt., Inc., 529 So. 2d 986 (Ala. 1988) (affirming a summary judgment for the defendant where the plaintiff and her only witness testified that they had no idea how long the puddle of water on which the plaintiff had slipped had been on the floor, except that it 'looked like it had been there for a while,' and where there was no other evidence as to how long the water had been present or that the defendant had notice of it). See, also, East v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 577 So. 2d 459 (Ala. 1991) (affirming a summary judgment for the defendant where the plaintiff and her only witness testified that they did not know how long the substance had been on the floor and that they did not believe that the defendant had any notice the substance was there until after the accident). See Cash v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 418 So. 2d 874 (Ala. 1982) (affirming a summary judgment for the defendant where there was no evidence that the defendant knew that the foreign substance had been on the floor for such a length of time 'as to impute constructive notice').
Furthermore, in Logan v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc., 594 So. 2d 83 (Ala. 1992) (in which the plaintiff testified that she did not know what the substance was that caused her to slip), the Court held that the plaintiff's evidence presented to show that her injuries were the result of the negligence of the defendants afforded nothing more than speculation, conjecture, or guess and was wholly insufficient to warrant submitting the case to the jury. But see Maddox v. K-Mart Corp., 565 So. 2d 14 (Ala. 1990);
Ex parte Travis, 414 So. 2d 956 (Ala. 1982); and S. H. Kress & Co. v. Thompson, 267 Ala. 566, 103 So. 2d 171 (1957), in which the Court held that under the facts of some cases, testimony as to the nature and condition of the substance can be sufficient to support an inference that the defendant should have discovered a foreign substance on the floor of its premises. These cases are distinguishable from the case at issue." 599 So. 2d at 1144.