more or less judge my client was residing in a apartment on the top floor of a single family home the one way to do that residence was through a door in the first four that led to you to tell you room in the stairwell  to her apartment and the argument made to the trial court where you are making an appeal is that the only door that provided her access to the outside not meet the standards of ordinance that was in effect dictating what kind of  a portion of that code exit be a store required person of international residential code states that not less than one exit door conforming to the sections of the provided for each drawing unit and that the shall provide direct access from the have been able portions of the dwelling to the exterior so our basic argument is the only door that there was that led from that little portion of the unit led to a stairwell an utility room which then led to a second door which let outside and that's not sufficient under the cover the code itself defines what is a little portion of the unit and specifically says that the stairwell read provide a unit to my client that was up to code you know the last sentence of the exit the required paragraph is something that's been argued about back and forth in the briefs and i think probably do a little better job  clarifying what my position is about that last sentence because in my initial grief i argued that it would require them because of the section to build an extra little stairwell or ramp and i don't think that that i think that this is the less sense of this code is referring to a two story house and i think it's important to know that the code we're talking about only concerns single thing only residences the house lately and we're talking about i don't think there's been any argument about that it wouldn't address a large apartment complex with several units and i only mention that because i know that there isn't his lot there about common area common areas and large apartment complexes a lot of his lies talking about iris caves outside of windows and large apartment complexes but there's a different code that deals with those types of commercial buildings this code that were dressing today just deals with single family residences and i think that there's that last sentence downstairs that's missions and access to the up stairs can be by a stairwell ramp but in the event that it's a separate unit altogether you still need access some as to the unit directly from the middle portion of the unit and i think to read the facts that i pled which i think are more specific than the facts that were played in some of the cases dealing with fire scares we've said specifically there was a utility room in a stairwell that was the only access to the unit there wasn't a door leading directly from a bit of a park to the outside unit for that reason there wasn't a door that met what was required by the code that was the issue of that the judge decided against us at the trial level of the court decided in reading his or more generally night to be fair to the trial court it's difficult to i think flush out in writing or why or why not you might interpret such a small section of a statute to mean what it does but we respectfully disagree with the trucker's interpretation we think there has to be direct access from a little part of the unit to the outside and the to do that in this particular structure there would have to be two exits and that approach is more of the proximate causes of the case perhaps of but in any event we don't think that there was a there is a breach of contract because every lease within every lease that a tenant signs is also in body all the ordinances and legal requirements for providing housing units for tenants so we're saying that there was first of all his negligence because they violated the ordinance second of all there's a breach of contract because the ordinance was violated the current traditional discussed as generally at the trial court level because if the court had already found there was no violation of the ordinance there was no need to address it in the context of a breach of contract you found the provision had been met by the landlord so when the he's concluded there was a thirty minute complaint filed which included account for breach of contract that offends me or all motion to dismiss it or the court granted it and basically the understanding was i think it's contained in the records in the briefs that the issue that result the organs violation would in fact resolve the contract action against us by way of similar motion as a fifty motion to dismiss all would be resolved on the s grounds the second count is our request that the court revisit the issue of the relationship between landlords and tenants generally and understandably there is that but i've asked the court to take another look given that the last illinois supreme court case that really discussed this duty to provide a reasonable means of grass the duty of only a morgue to treat its tense with reasonable here is from one thousand nine hundred and in that case even the issue wasn't decided directly the supreme court said in all likelihood there is no common law degree of but we don't need to address it because there's ordinances that were in place even then that address the fire station the exits in the his can be resolved on those grounds but when you read the tone that the only supreme court has been taking with the issue of duty i think that the opinion that i talk about it in different ways but generally speaking there are it's a it's a matter of public policy and there are four things that the court will look at when they're discussing whether or not a duty exists or they discuss them in the marshall reserve routine case but the relationships between landlords and tenants was discussed in the jack spring case although not in the context of negligence or duty and i think that at least in how we experience for most tenants today as they discussed back in the seventy's and ejects case people are not leasing land the relationship between in the present tense was at least in my common experience and perhaps in the courts common experience much less like an innkeeper guest experience but then that isn't necessarily the case now jack spring talked about amending the common law when the common words of the date change and expectations have changed when people's lifestyles have changed and it makes more sense to establish a new duty where the relationship might have been considered something that imposed a duty in the past and generally in my brief i argue that in common experience today when someone looks in the newspaper at a classified ad and someone goes online to find an apartment or unit most people that are doing that are looking for and expect something that would be safe and accommodating place to live i think people in their own experience would feel that and maybe even be shocked to discover if it wasn't fact and is still a law a landlord had no duty to then to provide them with it with a reasonably safe place to live and relationship innkeepers and yes probably in my in my in my in the middle east more closely reflects the relationship between landlords and tenants in two thousand and twel people's expectations of what people would reasonably expect a landlord would be required to do when they need something available to rent the supreme court has said that business owners that open the doors to customers to walk into their restaurant seriously injured and killed people but also when there's third party criminal acts and have said where are many other to do things you must necessarily assume that they might also do evil things and commit crimes and that there's a duty to to the extent that you can to the extent that public policy would have them conform protect against those things and i think that in the common experience today ten is that are very transients  this case signing only a one year lease at the time they don't have an interest in proving the property there or they're renting a place to live and they expect it to be said and i think that the same philosophies in the same logic that initially cause judges to tell business owners that they need to use reasonable care towards their patrons or in heber's that they need to use reasonable care towards their guests would strongly support the imposition of that same relationship on  that afternoon the long short of the situation is that there's nothing wrong with my client's apartment building what you have here is a very common set up you have an outside door that leads into a hallway or utility area then you go up to a stairway and then you have the door to the second war this is a very very common set up if you look at the that the door must go immediately from the inside to the outside another word you can't have a stairway or hall where utility room but that's not what the statute says as a practical matter  someplace else this would put so many places in the nonconformity kind of boggles the mind the other thing is very important here is let's say in our situation if we didn't have that little hallway there situation that we have it actually gave the tenant more protection because the intruder is far away as to go to more doors that have the existence of this hallway and the stairway had nothing to do with the are generally that this is a common way for problems to be set up i would simply suggest that if there are several organs in violation that wouldn't make any difference if they're in violation of the code violation code i suppose they should all be fixed whether it's a common mistake  people that are organisms i don't think is important to legal issues the second sense of the statute that refers to the garage i think pretty clearly that doesn't mean that the only restriction put in place by that paragraph is that actions cannot be through garages i would suggest that the reason they say from the little portions without failing through a garage is that garage is not specifically included in the definition of non  spaces so they didn't say to a garage or utility room or any of the other things in that section of the station itself because all those things were previously defining the defined editable spaces as i don't think of the entire definition of that section of the statute is that you can't travel through a garage and i don't think that that's the best interpretation of that section of whether or not this violation was the cause of the injury i think is beyond reason for dismissal i think at that point we're discussing proximate cause finally i would say that what we're asking for is not a second exit in all units but simply one code informing exit that leads directly from billable space to the outside which is what i think is required by the code although in this case given the construction of the building i think the only way to give a co conforming exit what had been in fact the second exit leading directly from a bedroom with a kitchen or somewhere else which would of necessity to any two story to apartment home t