excerpt from the restatement which says where there is a warning given the seller may reasonably assume it will be read and he did but there is another part of that sentence that beats your argument does not do it it goes on to say in depriving bearing such a warning which is safe for use if it is found load is not to be in defective condition nor is an unreasonably dangerous argue that they had no reason to know that this was dangerous because the warningly wall which is placed on private provides that it could cause injury and so it's giving the school that notice that there's something else on risk involved in operating this equipment well other than the restatement section that you cited in your brief what authority do you have to support your position and a warning label gives that notice unfortunately  previously in order to determine the online conduct you need to look at the vigil facts of each case and so i think there are three things you need to look at in this case one most importantly is the fact that this child was instructed by her coach and authority figure to operate equipment to the warning label provides that there is a danger involved although the coach did not provide her with any guidance or any advice whatsoever before instructing her gatorade the equipment and three community rules that accompanied the equipment provide to school that and so the school was in a much better position to know the dangers associated with the equipment and the proper and safe way to operate the equipment so they're like i said there are three things to look at which is nice you know the luggage the school th the set screws are to be tightened prior to use and so we do a lot of the school had that knowledge and that did not involves the the student when instructing her to operate the equipment that she should do that  basically the kind that can be intentional or reckless and i think that that's the argument here that the coach in this case acted recklessly and instructing the student and the with the knowledge that they they could have done to correct the situation which was there really a situation to corral is it just a situation whereby you would advise the kids hanging with tightness be careful what what if anything would you lead you should do with alleged did they do and could have corrected rule one the fact that the coach was in a better position to know the dangers associated with the is that what you're saying basically but i think that on the peter's case in the manual cases are instructive in this case and those are all there are instruction cases where the court found that an allegation that charles instructed by coaching had at all this dangerous condition and that's why we argue that that warning labels is very specific and clear right on the brink itself they should provide the school with notice that it is dangerous or likely to cause injury but so the case then this case is not like manual because there was no warning label issued there they are they knew of a specific condition that existed which was the way to steer away correct the slippery correct  what stairway and with sat actual knowledge they then told a child who had cerebral palsy to traverse that stairway so that's not the facts of this  right i mean this you're saying there are some warning labels there as opposed to a natural condition we talked about earlier you didn't allege that the screws weren't tight here so these are different facts aren't they in the peterson case which is another instruction case it's alleged they had the coach who was aware that it could be dangerous to instruct the student or the players to run better position in the student to know the dangers associated with this equipment to schools in the school selected the equipment ordered it possessed the manuals and in our minds until they get it and that's our argument that they were in a position of the suppliers some because they were in a fire position to know what was involved the sequent that the student who knew this was her first time operating the equipment and the coach potentially operated it on a daily basis and had the advantage of knowing how the equipment worked and seeing the manuals but now you're speculating you said maybe so we don't know any of that correct well we do know that the school purchased the man a little over a year before the incident and possessed the manual read them or it's very clear that the defendant still should have been aware of this morning leave while what i provided and the dangers that it provided and at this stage i mean whether the the public policy i don't think that the schools in a situation like this should be allowed to hide behind you know toward immunity or or anything like fair especially when they're in charge of minor students dangerous condition framework to the fact that there's a warning label on that equipment which actually makes it safer so to have the district become essentially the guarantor of all equipment that it purchases for use and it is operating a prank that i raise my attention and saluted and to school and the student have equal access to this warning label which is affixed plainly on the on the equipment but there's no to take that extra leave and saying that by virtue of just instructing her to use that demonstrates a conscious disregard based only on warning label we have no facts as counsel admitted during an argument they are going to facts  condition a court in peter's was pretty specific in holding that this was the pleading stage and therefore that allegation was sufficient so do you think that peters's distinguishable were wrongly type of rules into an toward immunity context it just they don't fit and that's why when you have to resort to morrow to the restatement you're basically conceding you have no facts you don't have a peter situation you don't have a manual situation where you have someone or an entity public or a public entity consciously disregarding the safety of another well but isn't the danger of the falling poll that craig that has attended to the tendency to snap back self evident not for purposes of or for one conduct i mean there has to be a conscious disregard for difference in that event just does not rise to that level under these facts that there was no knowledge of anything happening like this before i mean that's one of the elements what  condition caused earlier injuries or it was that the school district was aware that there were earlier injuries and it does appear that the school district on notice that there are some problems with this now it does it does most of the cases attention to snap back but all you have is the warning label we don't have this situation where you're looking at it over an obvious danger or you've got a rope ladder twenty five feet up in the air not enough mass and you don't have enough anybody supervising and making sure that the child using the rope ladder is not be but how do we fix the fact that there has been no discovery conducted with i mean how are they supposed to know some of these additional facts without  still a plaintive by relying simply on warning label that's just not enough to get her through to the threshold she has to allege facts out of actual constructive knows that she just has not done and the fact that there is no discovery does not that should not factor into the motion to dismiss because the liberal standard is such so liberal that everything is right in her favor and when there have to be facts unless there just aren't any even constructive notice council stated that everything would be limited to its facts but really there really is no way to safely limit this case if a warning label is sufficient to give constructive notice a condition the equipment that causes injury then there really is no bounds to that liability and you would be importing product liability standards into a tour of duty contacts which defeats the purpose of toward immunity which was you also discourage school district from  and i think that this is there to that situation again in terms of the public policy and implications of this case was strictly recreational activities i think that as long as the coaches are going to operate what appears to be dangerous equipment on their own i don't think that this is going to be burden on the schools or the teachers or the recreational activities