they did because we can present tribal issues a fact concerning the elements of our negligence claim in particular the evidence of duty we raised issues concerning the perceived ability of the third party criminal activity that did occur on the premises with respect to whether we breached whether on the pre state duty we did introduce sufficient late evidence which under rhode island is sufficient to enable a jury to make a commonsense or prince as to whether what a reasonably truly hotel owner or employee would have done under the circumstances for the that oh excuse me coupled with the evidence undisputed evidence that these attackers were had a kills a beer got side on the hotel at over to past two thirty in the morning and be argue that they did not that the obtained a case of beer after two thirty in the morning right at the hotel would suggest that this is not the first case of beer that they had that night the of excessive noise which sounded like teenagers partying they smelled marijuana the drug use with the young each of these statements follows the facts and marci on which  right outside the army and the district court to determine that his he's an agent for the purposes of this motion and as such the agent was aware we have evidence testimony from the pla while there were six cameras in operable of the twenty four that night it was certainly is it is considered that there was some evidence that was something new evidence that night which was not available and least at first it was a does it as many as twenty people were in this one hotel room then in their declarations that they prepared for litigation the parties had pared those numbers down to at least four at least six and these are facts that are suggestive of material disputes is suggestive that the army was much more concerned about time of night the record doesn't establish whether he would have known but he does testify that he went into trying to understand why he didn't take the additional step when wendy ballet said he wasn't go take place in his proof of my understanding of the law is that it is in rhode island just completely silent on that side not aware of a single case that establishes the standard of care owed by in this case a luxury hotel in  this becomes relevant under the special relationship aspect of the duty inquiry in other words there is only a duty incumbent upon a hotelier to somebody with whom they have a warrant and it requires the chord to assess the state of defendant's knowledge prior to the events in question and that's crucial because that's what we're saying and that's what this court is a store there's a whole r along on how to conduct the foreseeability murray there's no there's no very articulate explanation of it you can you can divine how the foreseeability is conducted from any the court determines that the depend on some duty to the class or category of persons that include the victim generally the question of foreseeable foreseeability constitutes an issue of fact it was properly submitted to the jury because you know it and it's an important distinction for the purposes of this case because what plaintiff is arguing is you look at the duty each stage in the factual circumstances as they  we're saying no you you because there was duties that threshold situation what does the defendant know how are you going to place upon them the burden of protecting invitees if you don't look at the state of criminal activity prior celtic center and honor i say at a certain point at a certain point in the sequence of events be incurred becomes the standard of care what should they have done and that's that's there's no evidence of the ethical standard of care in rhode island unless it's obvious to a lay person what the appropriate standard of care in this case of a luxury hotel in downtown providence is it's a matter for expert testimony then for your own to be don't as the events unfolded the question also relationship is a foregone conclusion for see abilities a foregone conclusion what's left to establishing two i didn't say the duty inquiry we argue must well i think if you look you look at what the defendant knew about criminal souls on the property in the past in the vicinity in order to establish the duty  going at it big time they now come on to the property of the hotel as i understand it you're saying the hotel has no obligation to call security at that moment that's right that that