at 1094. The third district held that the evidence that the ice cream was thawed, dirty, and splattered, although susceptible of the inference that the plaintiffs slip and fall had created the condition, was equally susceptible of the inference that the condition existed beforehand. Therefore, the issue of constructive notice should have been decided by the jury. In the instant case, Mashni testified that after he slipped, he noticed the water was dirty. Even though the dirt could have been created by Mashni’s fall, under the reasoning in Ca-mina, the fact that the water was dirty could also create an inference that it was on the floor for a period of time sufficient to create constructive notice. See also Colon v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc., 721 So.2d 769, 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). In Lynch v. Target Stores, 790 So.2d 1193
holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding evidence legally sufficient holding that testimony that the grape on which plaintiff slipped was squashed and muddy that the floor was dirty and that pieces of paper were strewn around nearby was no evidence that the grape had been on the floor long enough to charge the store with notice holding that in the absence of undisputed evidence the issues of whether a store in a slipandfall case had actual or constructive knowledge of an item on the floor is a question reserved for the jury holding that evidence that a potato had a dirty and mashed appearance was sufficient evidence to create an inference that it had gone undetected on the floor for a sufficient period of time to place the owner on constructive notice