that it accumulated dirt over a long period of time than it can support the opposite inference that the macaroni had just been dropped on the floor and was quickly contaminated by customers and carts traversing the aisle. In Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Arellano, 492 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.), another spilled-macaroni ease, the court held that testimony that the dried macaroni noodles that caused the plaintiffs fall were “soiled, scattered and appeared as though other persons had passed through the area and had been run over presumably by another cart or carts” was no evidence of the length of time the macaroni noodles had been there. Id. at 728; see also H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Rodriguez, 441 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1969, no writ) (<HOLDING>); H.E. Butt Grocery Store v. Hamilton, 632
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 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 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 holding that absent any actual evidence of injury the plaintiffs allegations were too vague to establish the jurisdictional floor for damages