standard view that we are using to to valuate the secretary's decision is different than what you just stick yes your honor what it what is our standard well yes they all tell this is it cannot be a lot less if it is has to do show in this particular case was and the judge had to demonstrate that it was that the standard applied that standard was violated the employees of the employer were exposed and that the employer you just didn't believe him she she thought the evidence showed that somebody if not mr guess at least somebody from century was there that morning that's all the crane saw the danger and did after that the lot of that fifty one dollars that there were other portions of the subdivision working on other things and in fact and so and that was never any but are never discredited by the judge in her decision so she is so to say that this with respect to the with respect and the knowledge but once again on his testimony he's indicated that he did not really know who it was in have any idea it was  said it was that he had a polo shirt on but when he was asked on cross examination with do you know that with this person was from century communities he said no and so clearly this split this clear question about construction construction drawings and they knew how to beat to death they had worked with the company that did the drawings so they were aware of it their point cement that's what they did and that's where the has a so there's kind of a distinction in that respect company's finishing manager stated in his testimony i was with dad as the entire at the time of the inspector and inspection parts of the axis of gas was with me at the other end of the set up in a subdivision working with me we were working up to place to anything that would lead him to believe that the crane would be there he was there the night before day before so where they were felt that it was going to be at least another one or two days before they would be lifting the trust is so we understood that there and there was no really  labor in this case the century knew of the electrical hazards from the overhead power lines which ultimately killed one man and severely injured another century however failed to take any reasonable actions to prevent this violet condition she found his testimony to be untrustworthy for his testimony to be self serving and to be conflicting and based on what she had heard i was not talking about and another another witness  corroborates gav story to the ministry of law judge analyze that other witness and make a credibility determination for example a credibility determination that mr barton yes  been working without incident for several months your honor in sas or own the crane operator had performed work at that specific worst site three to four times without any incident in this case however of identifying site specific cause or its and or and informing subcontractors of these type of hazards however mr got his field to inform mr shad wake of this hazard and the parties have stipulated that century was a controlling employer because it had supervisory authority over its work site including the authority to correct safety and health violations or to require others to do so the l t properly found that century the not exercised reasonable care because although mr got as the supervisors specifically assigned to lock fifty one knew of the electrical hazards from the overhead par lines he failed to take any reasonable actions he knew that the trusses had been delivered when he had visited law fifty one dollars to the before the fatal incident and he had therefore need known that a crane would be arriving within a few days to lift the trusses on to the house he therefore had known of the hazard and the imminent crane activity that was about to occur however if you failed to follow up with the subcontractors to see how in regard to the issue of employer knowledge your honor the secretary me me it's burden by showing either actual or constructive knowledge and here there is substantial evidence to show that instances shown in the record that proof that someone saw a century manager on the morning of the fatal incident mr shied away during his deposition stated that she had seen a century manager pass by law fifty one the morning of the beetle incident and employee number one also testified that he had actually spoken to a century manager that morning that manager had stopped by in his blue truck and  incident the record also shows that mr goddess had known that the trusses have been delivered as i mentioned earlier and had even planned for the trusses to be delivered to one side of the lot in order to avoid the overhead power lines however mr god has failed to inform the subcontractors of the hazard and i violated condition and therefore there is substantial evidence to support that finding in regards to constructive knowledge there is a central evidence to show that the record shows and there is a potential evidence to support the l t c finding that century had constructive knowledge of the violated condition even if we were to think that the a l j that there was not substantial evidence that there was actual knowledge with what do you do with the the constructive knowledge argument well once again your honor i think with respect to constructive  site is there not going to be needing a crane for a while because it could take two with at least one of one day before that the trust is going to be a seized he made that determination as the construction manager and based on his his his knowledge of the process that they were doing  did not know that the crane had been ordered to be here is system that he had set up that the trusses that were delivered were on the far left side and side of the house where the power was wrought on the other side of the property and that's enough that's all you need to do is to see that the trusses are over here the power lines there you don't need to engage in any sort of proactive discussion about well once again it's not he would not he would he i think with respect to kind of ties into the think that the british show that they were in fact we did have we did show reasonable care exercised by century because if you meet those then the multi employer doctrine does not apply and that means