i guess the question comes down to what is he's met me when he says that to dash to two days to go to requires some affirmative conduct by unisa penalty in this case our nobody nobody told me that the reason i know the reason or that's the problem here is that they knew about your news the process had started and that's what makes it different than the weird case that supports collapse case that they rely upon there the village did it or the city did an inspection but they didn't tell the people with the porch it's ok i think that's what would make you different from your honour's hypothetical one sided make the phone call or one of the in this case it could happen the way i could call a village and say i did this is true ok or the village you come to me and say people would have looked at it and talked to cyber gym and made sure it was ok they really relied upon that which i'm not aware of in other cases exactly like this with this limited exposure the other  to keep its roads and safe and sane position and the court upheld all they had to do was put up a staff sign of the intersection and they did that but within the first bomb was actually the seeds of this case of course he cursed bomb pointed out and let's assume for the sake of argument that the inspector supervisor had gone back out there and found the bush's if he felt the bushes were confined in the accident still occur we still be in the same place the exact same place the may be the fact is that there was no further action to council's workers after early december of two thousand and so now both of these union provisions provide absolute long qualified immunity immunity from negligence had made false representations to the administrative law judge in their case about whether the if it complied with the city code and even with all those facts the court again boiled it down to the essential fact that the city did nothing to the facts or the similar facts stated in general and that is that the officer was there a sort of control at the time him and the court at least not even likely to the special duty doctor in which in order to create a duty of care different than  the injury in other words this is probably a ridiculous example but you know these factor drops a tape measure on someone's foot or something like that but if it's just the inspector who says i think that those bushes who filed the ordinance and i'm not going to do anything further which is what happened here i'm not going to respect i'm not going to take a course that's a purely to force the law that's not control of the sea so whether it occurred the day after or the phone call the accident or whether  i will be brief and i know the court hears that frequently but if you think can't be this time inspection is not the issue and that's the problem here and it's not that they did nothing is that when they talk to the homeowner by doing nothing of a single cruel to the the police officers released the drunk driver and the accident didn't happen from then accident happened subsequently so it's clear that you can have the negligent conduct here and the effect of that economy down the road at least some courts are going to say that's still in forc