We reverse and render judgment for Brookshire. 102 S.W.3d 816 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003). A Brookshire employee testified that ice fell to the floor from the soft drink dispenser on a daily basis, that users were prone to spill ice from time to time, and that ice on the floor was a hazard to customers and had to be cleaned up regularly.

In Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet substance in the deli, which she alleged was a piece of ice that had fallen from a Coke dispenser. 102 S.W.3d 816, 819-20 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. filed). Taylor claimed that the manner in which Brookshire maintained its drink-fountain area constituted a dangerous condition, whereas "from Brookshire's point of view, the puddle was the dangerous condition."

We now turn to Holiday's motion for summary judgment regarding Pierce's premises liability claims. An invitee must prove a premises liability claim by showing (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises, (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate or reduce the risk of that harm, and (4) that the defendant's failure to use such care proximately caused the invitee's injury. Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 102 S.W.3d 816, 820 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. filed). According to Holiday, the testimony of Darwin Gunby and Dwayne Brown conclusively show that Holiday had no actual or constructive knowledge whether there were any "holes or washouts" in the field.

An invitee must prove a premises liability claim by showing (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises, (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate or reduce the risk of that harm, and (4) that the defendant's failure to use such care proximately caused the invitee's injury. Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 102 S.W.3d 816, 820 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. filed). According to Holiday, the testimony of Darwin Gunby and Dwayne Brown conclusively show that Holiday had no actual or constructive knowledge whether there were any "holes or washouts" in the field.

Such proof is merely speculative and is of no evidentiary value. SeeGonzalez, 968 S.W.2d at 937-38 (plaintiff only proved that macaroni salad could possibly have been on the floor long enough to make Wal-Mart responsible for noticing it; plaintiff did not prove that it was more likely than not that macaroni salad had been on the floor for a long time); see alsoReece, 81 S.W.3d 812, 816-17 (no evidence to support constructive notice because the plaintiff had no evidence that the spill was conspicuous, no evidence indicating when or how the spill came to be on the floor, and no evidence of the condition of the liquid to show how long it had been there); Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 102 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. filed) (plaintiff slipped and fell on ice dispensed by a soft-drink machine and alleged that the placement of the machine created a dangerous condition; evidence that employee admitted that ice fell on floor from machine on a daily basis and that Brookshire's knew that ice fell beyond area where mats were placed showed that Brookshire's knew the danger the machine posed to its customers). Considering all of the summary judgment proof in the light most favorable to Hambrick, we hold that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the Partnership had constructive notice of the "black ice."