¶ 1 Defendant Albertsons, Inc. (“Albert-sons”), appeals, inter alia, from the trial court’s denial of Albertsons’ motion for directed verdict. Because we reverse the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for directed verdict, we do not reach the other issues raised on appeal.
¶ 2 In May of 1993, plaintiff Patricia Merino slipped on a kiwi and fell while shopping in an Albertsons’ produce department. Approximately one year later, Ms. Merino had another slip-and-fall accident at the same location. This time, Ms. Merino brought suit against Albertsons for personal injuries arising from the two incidents. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, Albertsons moved for a directed verdict against Ms. Merino. The trial court denied the motion and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Merino. Albertsons appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for directed verdict as well as several of the trial court’s other rulings.
¶ 3 “This [c]ourt’s standard of review of a directed verdict is the same as that imposed upon a trial court.”
Management Comm, of Graystone Pines Homeowners Ass’n v. Graystone Pines, Inc.,
¶ 4 This is not a case of first impression, but we take this opportunity to clarify the law. We have repeatedly held that “a business owner is not a guarantor that his business invitees will not slip and fall.”
Schnuphase v. Storehouse Markets,
¶ 5 The first theory applies in cases involving an unsafe condition of a temporary nature. In these cases, liability cannot be established unless two conditions are met. First, a plaintiff must show that the business owner knew or should have known of the hazardous condition. Second, a plaintiff must show that the business owner had enough time to remedy the unsafe condition had the owner exercised reasonable-care, and that the owner failed to do so.
¶ 6 The second theory giving rise to liability for slip-and-fall accidents on business premises involves unsafe conditions of a permanent nature. In such circumstances, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant had knowledge of the condition; notice is presumed.
¶ 7 The present case does not involve an unsafe condition of a permanent, or even semi-permanent, nature. Ms. Merino slipped on a kiwi in 1993 and then slipped on a jalapeño a year later. There is no testimony that the floor was permanently covered with fruit or vegetable debris. The testimony of plaintiffs investigator regarding the condition of the floor was gathered from some nine visits over a period of approximately two years and cannot be said to es-' tablish a permanently unsafe condition at the time of either accident.
¶8 In short, this is a case arising from an unsafe condition of a temporary nature. As plaintiff, Ms. Merino was re