providing unique from negligence to a certain subset of government property namely recreational property where municipalities are only viable for all who want to conduct leading to the condition of recreational property then turning to section  to mean i can understand in relation to rustic roads in paris rossi make areas of undeveloped natural areas but does it does absolutely or makes sense from a practical standpoint with respect to determining which conditions to repair in the manner in which  ensuring the safety of the citizens of illinois by providing immunity only for next chance that's because we as a society we want and need parks and recreational property but we also want to be safe and the legislature surely had that in mind when they enacted everyone the sex and provided only immunity for ordinary negligence ever the same time the illinois legislature enacted three one sits it also acted other sections that pertain to other types of public property and there's a continuum of  ies as a player not in the brief and there's a reason why you know the legislature would have assigned no unity to three one or two for streets and sidewalks and limited immunity for recreational property and then we get to three one of the sat and the legislature decided they wanted to have absolute immunity for the power you described with three one of seven so why would they do that what would be their chance so we started looking at the access road to hunting fishing or our primitive camping recreational or our scenic area three one of seven a the legislature intended for the word primitive adjective primitive to modify the three nouns the following so they didn't need to put a primitive when we look at what is what is primitive it's not all of it's natural so so we have a hiking it's a fishing trail but as the bow hunting trip ok hunting fishing hiking writing what comes to my mind is horseback riding hunting fishing these are basically do in nature things that we do in the wilderness outdoors we're not doing any hunting on the lake front trail in chicago or the  is i have a question though i isn't at the root one of the first steps is to determine what the definition of road is and what the definition of trail is and what is the ordinary meaning coming to you in the terms of as i'm concerned it means a vehicle just another reason why it applies to undeveloped property are absolutely right the common for nafta or for road is vehicular traffic and the public cannot drive their cars on the lakefront trail but it's called the trail yes but it is a hiking trail because hiking fishing hunting and vehicles they go up and down security i'm not sure i understand the question but i will say that road has been defined as a hard surface i believe the park district defined it as that and if we're going to define road as a hard surface then that would because we want these lands to remain in their natural condition we don't want anyone maintaining that that is now we have a late friend trail it is well maintained and the pur so beyond the plain language of the statu you could say everything to have access to seen the curious you know a sidewalk and have access to a scenic area if i'm in a park and i want to go you know look at the sky right you know that's x everything has access to something else but you know when we think of access road just like road we think particular traffic when i think of access road and i think most people would think this is a frontage road it's not nobody said oh i want to go ride my bike on the access road i mean it defies logic that the live front trail would be considered an access road and certainly not one that would be providing access to primitive camping or recreational and certainly not one that should never be maintained every case that has interpret it three one of sack and except wor analyze the statute probably the clearest when it talked about looking at the statute as a whole and the reason for having absolute immunity is because you know these here is should be primitive and because we don't of city park that same logic does not apply and there's unfortunately no legislative history but there was a law review article written a couple years after the statute was enacted and so what about public policy the couple purchased very actively very actively encourages people to use lakefront trail not to chicago residents they even encourage trail not only to date encourage people use it they say they tout it is being very say well maintained and beautiful   for injuries on the lakefront trail goes against the plain language of the statute it goes against the ordinary common usage and meaning of that the purchaser knew about the spread and they knew it was dangerous they thought it was severe they thought it needed emergency repair so what did they do for the sub sub who fixed a non emergency repair before they fixed the severe emergency repair why because mr canady didn't check to make sure that the severe emergency dangerous condition which worked here we have a crack in the middle of the lake french trail we're sixty to seventy thousand people are using it to take on a summer weekend no even though they had available they planned to repair one day but planning to make a repair is not fixing and correcting the condition and so it existed and how long did it exist months because there's you know it could be starting we don't really know whenever the snow melted it in that year which the weather reports indicate it was march arlo knew about  you can't leave it dangerous condition on the lake front trail that sixty to seventy thousand people are encountering what could have been a child in a stroller what if the stroller wheel had gotten caught in that crack and the child flew off that means get it done right away and that is for unsafe conditions that present danger risk harm injury like a huge crack in the middle east front trail dangerous conditions are supposed to be put on the rapid response program carries out this ministerial tasks no discretion no absolute immunity thank you thank you party because they don't want to because i goes against the mission or values of these organizations and again if that were to become a problem down the road that would be something for the legislature to address legislature and that is the statutes to modifier of that nature at the beginning of its list rather than a modifier within the list of hunting fishing permit or camping and it didn't do so but i would also knows that for purposes of this case with a permit of modifies only three hundred seventy even where there is some development for example one of the pieces there are constructed bridges and port walks that allow the trail to accepts wetlands and areas that have water and that was