testified that she slipped and fell because the floor was wet, but she had no personal knowledge as to how long that area had been wet. She also had no idea how much water was in the area when she slipped, but she stated that her husband, who walked in with her, did not slip and fall. Further, Mrs. Richardson said that, when she entered the property on June 7, 2003, she saw nothing to indicate that there was a dangerous situation or defective condition at the property. Thus, even if the floor, in fact, was wet before appellants’ arrival, it may not have been noticeable to anyone in appellee’s office. There is nothing before the court to show that anyone brought the wet floor to appellee’s attention. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Hairston, 196 Md. 595, 598-99, 78 A.2d 190 (1951) (<HOLDING>). Again, we find that a relevant case from
holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support an inference of constructive notice where plaintiff who slipped on an unknown substance could not say that the substance was placed there by employees of defendant that its presence was known to them or that it was there for an appreciable time before accident holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance recognizing that evidence regarding the high price the defendant had paid for the substance in question was relevant to show the substance was cocaine holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge