spelling thank you all right very good counts of the point were against your client is the three there there was a there were two as i recall there was a third that had been stricken and was slated for the purpose of maintaining  ok so only two counts against your client and the basis of the libel any of those coun cover the outcome of the appeal as it may have governed the outcome of the trial well centric arest on both premises for reason of her own or if she testified was she under this premises by mistake if she was sorts of status of an individual who comes into the land of another if there's some form of inflation there's no outside normal business hours at a business that was plainly darkened but for an advertising sign oh big question comes down that's sort of law yes that's a very good question your honor and that may in fact be the next paragraph eric history foreseeable under the circumstances at the time the event occurred billion or is it a reasonable force a lot requires only at the defendant for foresee something reasonably likely hurt so mike response your honor in one word no intoxicated or distract is not key the key is what is forseeable to a reasonable person under similar circumstances one aspect of which what is known to the defendant what risk is known to the defendant and against which of light to guard given the physical layout at the time in question is not open for business the building is shuttered there is some light about but no physical and i believe the courts are entitled to look at what up evidence the plaintiff introduced at trial and appendix seven photograph intended to show your proximate condition at the time in question which permitted i would think any reasonable person to see what is there in her own testimony is scarce conceded that as she approached a corner of the building she was there to see well enough to stuff up over occur the next step the next event a few feet past that maybe a four to six i think was the testimony is that downward steps to the back door to the fire on the level of importance it was not pleaded that is not going to govern the court's decision here i can see it if we go from there what is indeed truly important that is the invitation plaintiff must accept in order for there to be patient and upright in the patient first and foremost must be in there must be an invitation to enter the premises under the circumstances at the time of the injury that counsel me ask you do you agree there must be something in the record to justify the instruction that's given some evidence in the record there must be some evidence so you're making the distinction that there were some evidence but it wasn't appropriate evidence or there was no evidence that was  issue of invitation one can say that there's always evidence in the record because the judge allows only evidence that that is the import of that evidence and what is it legally rather is your case  i think the basis is the relevance standard is that something must be relevant meaning it makes more or less probable a issue in contention well the fact that the evidence was allowed to be entered into if one looks at the jury's verdict she had no status whatsoever if she was not if it was inappropriate in the first that rivalry as to whether she is actually it was an inappropriate  this there's a couple of cases first of all the only spring or poke around person's ability liberty bell in that case the supreme court recognized that there were different roles for the village in the with this property once he was done with it they were done they were finished they went away and that was the end it was on the terrace you know took a dive down the stairs and then there you were interacting with again that's very different from the cases each of those cases at most are created condition where the unexpected independent acts of miscarriage coming on the start premises for whatever reason as well as the unexpected accept dr who simply not checking  court were to afford any relief yes to booth i don't think it should that we would somehow necessarily be entitled to the same kind of relief and  think there's a couple of responses to that first i think that the evidence was not that the stairs were in plain view but that's a little bit of a separate issue this case isn't anything like a condition it's where i am a parked car and the that was submitted to the jury first consideration that he they argued that this accident would have resulted if but for the negligence of both and it was really bruce fault they argued it was really harris fault and those issues were submitted to the jury earths consideration and the jury was appropriate three entitle to decide and this us all against everybody it considered brigham's arguments that it wasn't me it was argument and has to garrus i guess they're arguing that her conduct was a superseding intervening cause they're prob the causal connection neither of those are legally appropriate arguments where you're talking about a core party or going to give the same answer relative to the hanson sammer cases that are cited by booth does your client meet the status of implied invite to be relative to the need to enter the premises recent connected to the owner's business or in connection with an  enter onto the property on the jointly owned entryway she entered into his property because he had a cold on entry way out of the property that was there and was there because he either either of the property it was a joint it was a joint parking lot area and the fact that it was joint and basically motel and  allowed everybody to park everywhere was basically a benefit to both of their their clients and their customers there was no designation of specific areas like you said she enters into the property and his land because he allows everybody o l funeral home his own patrons to join there to enter onto his land to gain access to the property she says that the reason she winds up in the area where the accident occurs the stairwell is because the if the building and incidentally they also talk about this being late at night it's seven o'clock at night i think if she walks out of that property and it's completely dark in property and it's three in the morning she's a trespasser but she's building to be noticed that it is also correct that he testified and out if you want me to i'll try to find the cite for you that the reason he kept the lights on was also specifically so that the motel funeral home patrons would notice his building and he knew that they were there until nine o'clock at night because there were weights going on top at that point of the evening the other thing that would have made it clear that she was a trespasser doctor were confusing that area of his property with the front entrance and you know paperwork access and he said it was an area of his property that was open to the public he knew that people were accessing that area thinking it was the front entrance the suggestion that she intended to walk down a back exit fire exit stairwell is simply rather she believed she was accessing the front of the property and the other didn't show that because of the configuration of the building that was exactly where a front entrance will be and people have mistaken that as a front entrance because there would have been no reason at all to put a sign that said the front entrance is on the other end of the property entrance is at the south end of the property so he knew people were mistaking that as is the front area of the property so and so your opponent claims that your quite admitted she was a trespasser that's just not accurate i mean here read the testimony she she she  also testified that the reason she was that what attracted her to that area was that waiting in the fact that it was a sidewalk incidentally i think it is important that it's sidewalk sidewalk is something that is there for people to walk so we're not talking about one of the cases for example the exact cases where people are you know stampeding it at night through you know construction areas this is put there a sidewalk in an area the acknowledged was open to the public who i would just like to make the point that the only claim of error is really that the jury should not have been allowed to decide whether that there was no jury question yes to whether she was an implicit implied invitee and we cited a lot of cases well a lot but several cases of basically repeat the the mantra that if there's any kind of disputed facts of history differences that can be raised from the facts then the question of  s is for the jury to decide and we certainly have some evidence from which the jury could properly decide she was an implied invitee t it would have to order a new trial there was certainly she restrict access to the on my added area of the stairwell he fared to maintain one of the lights in the stairwell that would have illuminated the stairwell at least to the extent that maybe she would have noticed it he failed to put for wired for purposes of safety testified to that and he knew that not having the light in there was unsafe and he knew again this was an area of the property that nobody had any idea and he but he was never going to walk over to still wearing a splint on it because of the pain she was tim was sufficient factual basis to instruct on permanency so that you get is that not really understanding what the they they don't really argue that the doctor who testified after six o'clock you're not seeing any patients right crack that you wanted visible being the building to patient sure because you're next to a funeral home that's open tonight a clock right that's correct know where the people come in and out of that parking lot or their drive entrance up your nine o'clock yes you want people to see a building that's correct you want people to know there is an orthodontist right there on one hundred forty third street that's correct you know shut everything down at six o'clock when you're leaving ye