In Maans v. Giant, 161 Md. App. 620, 623, 871 A.2d 627, cert. denied, 388 Md. 98, 879 A.2d 43 (2005), the Court affirmed the granting of judgment in favor of a storeowner because the plaintiff "had failed to prove that Giant had either constructive or actual pre-injury knowledge of the wet floor." In terms of constructive knowledge, moreover, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show how long the dangerous condition has existed. Appellant failed to produce any evidence that had Giant made reasonable inspections prior to the accident it would have discovered the water on the floor in time to prevent the accident. For all that was shown by appellant, the water could have been spilled by a customer seconds before her fall. This is fatal to her argument that Giant is liable because it breached its duty to make reasonable inspections. See Burkowske, 50 Md. App. at 523 (To prove liability, an invitee must show that if the owner/occupier had made reasonable inspections, the defect would have been discovered in time to prevent the invitee's injury.). See also Deering Woods, 377 Md. at 267-68 (to show constructive knowledge, invitee must demonstrate that defective condition existed long enough to permit one under a duty to inspect to discover the defect and remedy it prior to the injury). 161 Md. App. at 632-33. Judge Salmon explained the merit behind the Maryland requirement. The Maryland rule has two purposes: (1) it requires a demonstration of how long the dangerous condition existed prior to the accident so that the fact-finder can decide whether the storekeeper would have discovered it if he or she had exercised ordinary care; and (2) it also shows that the interval between inspections was at least as long as the time on the floor. Thus, proof of time on the floor is relevant, not only as to notice but also as to the issue of what care was exercised. ...Without "time on the floor" evidence, the storekeeper would be potentially liable even though there is no way of telling whether there was anything Giant could have done that would have avoided the injury. 161 Md. App. at 639-40.