court determined that the mccarthys had failed to establish the hillside which operates a restaurant called houston's which will probably refer to it she used and had actual knowledge of the and unidentified substance on the floor at the restaurant the district court also determined that the mccarty's failed to raise a genuine issue in the tiriel fact as to whether or not hill stone had constructive knowledge of the and identified substance on the floor friends for valentine's day pam overs on crutches as the result of the previous accident that her to carve out in california six six months earlier so she knew how to use crutches pamela needed to visit the restroom at the houston's and in order to get to the rest restroom she had to walk across and this is undisputed she had to walk across a towel the area in the restaurant that tile the area was r outside through on the right outside of the service area for the bar this is all found him in the record miss mccarty says crutch slept while she that she noticed water or other liquids splattered across the floor outside of the kitchen area where miss mccarthy failed mr mccarty when he came to her aid to pamela mccarthy's a testified that throughout the tyler area there were pieces of lettuce and that there were the water droplets scattered throughout that area ryan beard the manager of the houston houston's mr beard and mr greer who is also a houston's employee testified that employees were constantly going through this area at least twelve to thirteen employees were going through this area every two to three minutes tiled area that was slick and greasy and wet that all of that is undisputed the texas supreme court require you to produce evidence that this is a direct quote that the condition existed long enough for the restaurant to discover it through reasonable inspection absent not just at th condition existed but that it had been there long enough to satisfy that show what evidence have you come forward with to satisfy that requirement your honor i believe that that this is the evidence when you have and as i testified as i said earlier when you have hill stone employees restaurant employees that testified that there are there are twelve to thirteen of employees walking through this area every two to three minutes and it is undisputed the the evidence is clear in the record and it's clear from what the court said in its opinion that there there was you have the hill stone employees testifying that every two to three minutes they're circulating through that area likewise you have undisputed testimony that this the floor was minutes and it is undisputedly slick and greasy that's evidence that that condition has been on the floor long enough the dozen points that are walking across it every two to three minutes to notice it grocery aisle and there's a grape that's been dropped or some water spilled on there and it's a long way away and employees walking through briskly doing their jobs may or may not be able to see that these employees were on this slick for every two to three minutes that's certainly enough time for them to be able to take over and acknowledge i'm sorry abstinence was the substance on the phone well the it did this area is right outside of the kitchen area where as i said mr beard the manager for the restaurant said that is certainly indicates that management not only had knowledge job it but had such knowledge of it that they could have can dip in a time when we're on a again i come back to the fact that number one this is right outside the kitchen area in a tiled area that employees including management are circulating through it every two to three minutes that's i mean that's an extraordinary if that would be my conclusion all right but but but your argument though is that these employees of houston should have three that's exactly right they were walking through this area every two to three minutes through this area every two to three minutes and this is a and this is an area right outside of the kitchen where we know grease comes from in a really could have been there for a minute it could have been there we have no the evidence that we have is that it was there that it was on the floor we have evidence also from a houston's employee mr greer to  it could have been there for thirty seconds it could have been there for two hours we don't know you don't know anything about them long enough except it's reasonable your honor that this is what i keep coming back to and i know i'm beaten a dead horse here but there's a case out of the san antonio court of appeals called beach day and i cited an early and in that case the court said that her gurney could reasonably infer from the end from the undisputed that is not remarkably different from this case this is an area right outside the kitchen houston's management testifies that they know that things can come out of the kitchen things can fall on the floor in terms of employee in terms of the employee i'm going to be quite honest your honor that is that there was some testimony about that but quite honestly i don't think that made it into the braves maybe in the record are you saying that it resulted from just natural traffic out of the kitchen to that area i'm saying that when you look at all the circumstances or this was you know when you cook a jury trial well the reason why the summary judgment is appropriate in this case even though there is a dispute about those sorts of facts your honor is that even assuming everything that the plaintiff has alleged in this case it was not sufficient amount of evidence to actually go forward to a jury the person most obvious is and this was recognized by the district court in its order and which was just said by mr austin law is that the plane it doesn't know what she slept on th only person who has ever testified in this case or given any sort of evidence regarding a greasy or sticky is mr mccarthy her husband did not say that her friends that she went out to dinner that evening did not say that no employee ever testified about that as and during her deposition which is a part of the record which was referenced by petition court and asked what did you slip on your responses i don't know do i have to know because we don't know what in fact the believe what mr austin has articulated during his presentation is showing the difficulty of first we have to infer that in fact mrs mccarty did slip and fall on some and we have to infer it because there is no direct or circumstantial evidence of that it is simply an inference because of the i guess the location of the tile floor secondly the court must have been inferred that whatever that substance was was on the floor long enough to constitute constructive notice pursuant to the texas supreme court's requirement that the of the time notice from the other way we can get there is through another third  which is whether or not when people we place the substance on the floor so no matter what we look at there is a double end foreigns that has to occur for the plaintiff to move forward with this case and the double inference is impermissible as recognized both by the t the court to is regarding the lack of evidence regarding direct knowledge of this foreign substance on what we have been mostly talking about is the time notice and the time it is a group that has to be constructive reason why i was simply saying that there's two is because conceptually whether or not he's since placed the the forms up and on the floor or they knew about it both of those are direct knowledge the other one is constructed knowledge and so under the direct knowledge prong of a premises liability case both are under the noticed element the only evidence we have here is a typographical error from one of the former employees who in a written statement said i i think to quote it i did see any food debris etc and then prior to his deposition he corrected that statement saying i did not see any food debris etc and probably did was that were you that is correct your daughter only did was add the word not he was cross subject to cross examination about this there was nothing in his deposition which in any way indicated that he actually did in fact see any foreign substance on the floor of the district court also pointed out and this is in the briefing as well is that let's just assume for the sake of argument that the written statement said i did see some foreign substance on the floor that written statement doesn't give any evidence of when he saw it in fact it would indicate when he saw it immediately preceding or immediately thereafter the slip and fall accident there was simply no gap in between his actual knowledge and the actual accident which would allow houston's to have remedied the legibly dangerous condition so under that really what we're doing here is that there is such a lack of knowledge is that we can either do double inferences which is in a while or we have to rely upon a typographical error and pay employees a written statement which he's already testified to that was incorrect and he had simply corrected it at his behalf to be grammatically correct your honour's there has been no argument from the plaintiffs that this court should interpret texas law any differently than it has been before there has been no argument that any holdings need to be extended or modified in this case the law in texas is very clear about promises liability claims the evidence in this case is lacking on the noticed element as well as other elements but the district court limited its decision on the notice element we've asked that the court simply affirm the district court's position  there and frankly i think it's undisputed if to be quite honest because there's no evidence of anything else in the record so you think there must have been something think well there there must have been something on the floor is that what you're getting at there are you know i'm asking you if that's your contention that there must have been something there there must have been something on the floor yes there must have been something on the floor because he missed mccarty testified that when she was on the ground in the restaurant the floor was sticky and greasy and i'm in we talked about point when you're talking about a few more in a condition like that your own o what you're what you're really doing is that it would be permissible for a restaurant to have a tiled area where accidents could happen and just turn out all the lights right there and just can reasonably infer that they had knowledge that that area was slick because they were going through that area constantly that's the only inference that's necessary here and that's a reasonable inference it's not a double in front it's