In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bernard, 69 Ark. App. 238, 240, 10 S.W.3d 915, 916 (2000), the Court held that the appellee did not present substantial evidence that water on the floor of a public restroom was the result of Wal-Mart's negligence, or that the water remained on the floor for an ample amount of time such that Wal-Mart knew or should have known of the water's existence. The Court pointed out that no testimony was given as to how the water got on the floor or how long the water was on the floor, and noted that a conclusion by the jury that Wal-Mart negligently caused the water puddle or that a significant period of time had lapsed to put Wal-Mart on notice was sheer speculation. As a result, the Court reversed the lower court's decision to deny Wal-Mart's motion for a directed verdict. See id. at 241, 10 S.W.3d at 916.