interpretation of the african relational as it applies to whether there is a jury where landowners contractors have contracts to remove selling the race for beneficiaries of those contracts and in this case we have a situation that we argue is based on other statements section three hundred and twenty four which has been adopted by a supreme court which lists the reasons where this duty to remove natural relation of snow can and gives that up manager the duty to assume the risk of removing snow and ice the land owner retains some control the situation by they're the only person a commuter as he's notified we have noticed in this case on this landowner metro that's the only person by your ship urges affidavit she call the number at the station who you call to complain metro if they're going to put their name and number on that station for complaints especially whe everywhere and not doing anything we just don't know really what they did they don't have any records of what they did we found that in the trial court is nothing in the record of what they did with that notice from the commuter the property they claim that they i think one of the attorneys at one point of that maybe the record that they claim t be liable and that's where we're the landowner has an ability to complain about issues and that's why i think your your situation of one individual in the house where they're not expecting people to be on their driveway or sidewalk or ever they're going to fall they don't expect people to some liability here for failure to remove snow and ice based on the terms of the contract and based on the notice or because i think notices big in this case there is definite notice no dispute about that with the ice at the station  really i don't see that being a bigger problem where responders who are are not hiring contractors are not shoveling snow on their own i think that in that situation there is lack of there could be noise issues or could be other issues of who's actually on pathways after a snow storm right from and when they go there monday or friday every day of the winter they expect that when they arrive not just to be able to get to work on time but be able to get to go to work through a clear pass i think that's the distinction where of course situation you don't have people on your home every day expecting it to be clear i don't think anybody has to guess at a residential place have that expectation as opposed to commuter we have a station who sees every when they get to work i'm really get the station to go to work on tuesday and it's not the night before it's all done for their benefit the contracts the civically states that no ice removal no race will be tolerated always has to be because that's what we expect and commuters people going to work people going about their daily li to experience in a commuter station so i think this is where this is the case beyond the the individual stork the mom and pop store that or even a homeowner who has some people come to their house every once and while this is a case where if we expand the natural cumulation will say you know commuter stations maybe there's no duty then maybe you know commuters are more now we have to worry about catching the train again and work on time and now we got worry about the snow and ice to even though we see them clearing it they court were to conclude that these type of commuter stations there is no general duty to remove natural cumulation of snow and ice despite the contract language in this case that there was a natural evidence suspicion and significant nd i'm sorry they talk about you omens for this unnatural accumulation notice and that the condition which caused by some sort of a natural or aggravation of the a situation and here we have to notice or talk about that already is consistent with that type of snowfall snow piles pushed up against the pay boxes near the ramp where my client fall and she's nosy and there we have a swing of temperatures and the temperatures against support that these snow between the snow piles melting and the actual voice was on the same location so we would ask that this court reversed both findings a proper and basically was to finding of the trial court number one a discusses the plaintiff raised is the unnatural accumulation theory and as i think the court pointed out at the end of fallon's argument while there may be photographs that are the record i don't think it's there it is that the layout of the where these parking or with a ticket area is in relation to the ramp is all that clear it's definitely not i believe that the evidence is that it's not clear from statement that she had seen sheets of ice had formed in that she'd seen piled snow it's insufficient under the case law just say that she's generally saw sheets of ice and piles of snow it's not are cited in the briefs where the court did find a connection between the mound of snow melting and refreezing and the area where plaintiff fell this does not meet that standard and  well that she actually she doesn't say she sees this birdie doesn't say she's sheets of ice i mean she talks about ice in general in the park and she said i saw that sheets of ice would form another round of a one hundred and forty seven dollars simply reports i don't know how or what she saw i don't know how they have that form but i don't think it's the all the evidence in the case of ports that because of the temperatures and then at the next question  talked about four days before caused a headache and actually we also don't don't we allow reasonable inferences at this stage i mean we we have had cases where and you cited something like the crane case and i think the risk is from the sixty's where the greed was such that the snow pile melting snow that could have gotten over to where the ice was found in that particular case it didn't really make sense because gravity wouldn't have necessarily require melting snow to travel site and so they said look unless you can get some expert to come in here to sort of explain how this could happen we don't see it speculation but then there's other cases that talk about things that we don't have to align ourselves to the obvious fact when it gets above freezing snow will melt that water will run till downhill if it's out of line of the laws of gravity i'm in a case like this if there is evidence that there was snow piles on the ramp and right above the ramp and we know that the temperatures fluctuated between these days that's undisputed that came from you from your evidence and we know there was no additional piece of his ship and isn't that fairly strong circumstantial evidence of the snow melt that in the because of the passage of time that there is always i submit there is always an inference to be drawn that it is from that this condition is from snow from the sky and melting in refreezing which is supported there is another contractor and i think oh well housing is something that was actually its normal couple and they look at the language of that contract they set up these guys don't have any duty to remove the ice because it says so in the contract that says remove snow but not after a certain point will well own and for that matter i guess coverage for those type of potential losses could also as happened with other areas a lot of construction that that could also an impact on how people people's desire not to do certain things because of the risk of lawsuits and it would it would basically it could eliminate the natural chelation and that's that analysis the court in georgia versus kroger did talk about three hundred and twenty four the fall that under the circumstances and i think the overriding reason was problems with the actual people ation my billet he but also the fact that fact that there is this the person that the the it's the reliance not by the person injured but that the person that they're relying starts with is somebody who does not have a duty to begin with the duty to remove snow and ice us that we have to sort of reenact the situation ice and snow disappear in a case this making his injured she can't go back there because of her injury she can't go back in time to injury to recreate snow and ice i mean that burning so that we can know exactly how that and then there is questions of fact in the record as to how much snow occurred after the snow removal processes and houses and some of the the the amounts independents are a very brief talk about there was no additional snow satellites so that there is reasonable inferences in that in the record of an actual accumulation from the snow causing my client to fall on the monday morning after the swings contractors and i think that the alan case sort of limits i care but still stands for the proposition that if you don't do anything and you have this language in the contract and there are alliance between the contractors and the property or a landowner then there is a duty that's going to happen when she gets to the train station monday morning is trying to get yours or her train to work i don't know how you can say that the consumers of this metro station are not relying on the snow removal contracts and that there is a benefit to them unlike in the jordan case when there was really no benefit to that interparty there is clearly a benefit to miss mickens like any other commuter who is going to work or going up on the business and trying to get to the train on a clear path specially when they see that