or a lot of time to begin with and since you've already sort of started well one of the things one of the hurdles or one of the legal obstacles you might have to overcome first is that worker's comp section that claims to extend immunity marks extend coverage under worker's comp to the service organization because if we were to find that that section applied in this case that is that truce company which was a workers comp carrier so when they tried to correct consumers from suing the workers comp carriers they also put in service corp and we're talking about service imagine what it would be and we can only go on the language that's in the palm statute itself and it seems to me that it did suggest that certain organizations because they fill the shoes of the employer in certain contexts should be treated as an employer is under the worker's comp statute and i thought that's the intent behind this amendment and it's been there a long time and quite honestly i understand th dark very many cases and maybe two or three cases that actually address this section but really it it would seem to me that it wouldn't come up very often it would come up almost always whenever you're hundreds of thousands of cases where you'd have immunity if we were to apply this to anybody coming in and doing inspection which i don't mean that there aren't a lot of cases out there millwood that there aren't a lot of there aren't a lot of cases that would negatively impact a plane and the injured party claiming that that liability falls on the service organization as opposed to the immunity to the comp carrier and they're also giving immunity to a service corporation a corporation that's only a private providing a service that in this case would be related as the myer case says to the contrary so they get a pass for the par citing the other supreme court cases regarding that it's not only when you talk about the obviousness of something that could be so called obvious it's a question of fact and it's not just the obviousness of it it's to obviously his question of fact and also means not only knowledge of the condition but also an appreciation of the danger it involves obvious means condition or rest are apparent to the really reasonable persons and there's obviously there is no duty from a fire fall from a height adi's of water which causes injuries are fully appreciated so i didn't really let me say make sure i understand what you're i think what you're saying is that if the danger is there and there's a means to protect against that the op if the danger is is substantial enough steps should be taken to protect the individual from that danger even a reasonable person would appreciate the risk was that a risk from falling from a height a couple of feet here the risk that ocean the n c s particularly protects from this respect to getting crushed as  was one inspection it was well having years before him harris was in here doing inspections to within six months of the curse that being said in respect to the ruling oh you know there was an expert dealing with so it's like when you look you can see that if humphrey has been here is had done what it should have done it would have protected humphrey as well well and according to the quaker people had humphrey sixty two ninety three and sixty to ninety for the record that when she came upon her friend she was being crushed between the ascending spear and the money for what was their duty are you arguing there was a duty  distraction because i think it's a question effect in terms of the obviousness especially in terms of the risk in this case she had no idea that she could have brought a reasonable person have any idea that they could i get of really stepping into a hole where you have a t immediately prior were saying that it's traction would apply because she says she's looking ahead at the stairs and mr berger safety expert talked about that in the record about what discretion is all you're here we're looking at  risk you can have a reasonable alternative and that i would cite the morsi in respect to that case and in respect not a proximate cause i would say if you look at both of the reason this case you would never read it she stepped in the goes on state to provide secret service advice or recommendations for the board everybody admits the quaker is the employer so the question is how do we interpret any meaning expansive terms and service organization doesn't say a service company  doesn't say a service partnership doesn't say special company it's a service organization but why don't we have to ask mr powers standpoint that day if we are to interpret this service organization to mean any company that hired by the employer to do  any safety related work where expanding this protection of the worker comp to so many individuals that are so many entities that there's composition coverage it's not like they're buying something off the shelf they're risk engineers the reports they're written there's an evaluation of the risk is so by doing this type of service by putting into the company record this type of service inspection they are con well be that the credits that were given for workers compensation training me will be that effect what's known as the model and you know from your opinions that models how companies rate workers compensation it's not unlike you getting a discount for your auto insurance reduction seatbelts it's the same thing and here that's part and parcel of what would happen in industry if you have a service if you have what schedule safety inspections that would be taken to taken into account it invades every aspect of commerce so if we stand in the shoes of the employer and have the same immunity enjoy the same unity as the employer and we affirm what he wishes leecher is saying remember what the legislature is doing is they're expanding the act because after nelson intent was to businesses it's all part of the same here so we have to speak general simply it's expanding immunity actually creating new is so for the myers to do exactly what we have here to protect service organizations because simply if you don't do that just as we're seeing in this case and yet we're not we don't have the benefit of cases like this that have gone up to the appellate court and get and been resolved on that basis of that statute which would provide us with guidance on this the people that are writing on the elevator or the escalator or whatever the frightens me big in a situation like this to that extent it is because if no one else can do that the elevator means i mean the not sure i would not agree because those companies are charged with that that's the reason why they don't get sued is because the have the immunity and they don't have the special relationship the link of the plaintiffs missing here so you're saying that there's no duty between paris and the ultimate victim here because there's no connection whether it violates the codes but also that we hear so actually physically install a guard by on that which as you point out was physically impossible it was a totally different place and it wasn't changed until nine months after we were there and again that  evidence in the case was changed when we were there mr feverel said there was a guardrail and when schwarzkopf changed those interest it was clear that the guardrail mr potter's referring to is the head real that should be at the start of the memory on the up so well on the up side and so it would have been on the third floor in this instance and the first floor subsequently after nine months later so some connection i didn't mean to suggest that there's absolutely nothing i can accident eleven years later and really there but in between our staying there we were there for a few hours i one day eleven years before the asked after we were there we were never asked to do anything microbes did not ask us that she should be careful when walking past it so she wouldn't fall and she knew for like that with that argument is that it places a very heavy burden on b interparty that the accident would have been prevented if he that warned them of a risk they already knew of in the laws that we don't have a duty to warn of them of a risk because that's the point will say it's the same there there was information in the record out quaker doing routine safety  discussions with employees yes it's the deck rack correct does that did that or mation that the danger of this whole is the possibility of someone being crushed like she was yeah absolutely that's what they train her about and all the so they were really seriously dangerous mechanism didn't have a car trail that kind of prevents what would be unhappy if danger i guess it didn't have a car railing there was obviously a reason qu oats chose not to install because they were told over the years as you pointed out that they should install such a guardrail and they so chose not to do it and the other thing i need to place when they came out in the night that is true how could they be held responsible for something they giving him in about thirty four when the first floor was not in  system and took it from the third floor and put it on the first floor has it and from one nine hundred seventy seven i've been til nineteen ninety one ninety two we testified one down or the space but he thought he thought that there was a kind of a mistress schwarzkopf testified to the contrary and the trial judge had both in front of her and she trails to believe mr five let me ask you just one final question for my purposes the only question i have and that is your primary reason for distinguishing five and with respect to these two defense what is five k under the workers well there is no because neither of them are service corporations so i don't think it would apply they're not service corporations as you as you interpret the term service organization  i don't think any inspector older than someone who's working for some special edition affiliated with the workers comp gerrard and one council says well assume they're getting a benefit for example of production for workers compensation ever come up so obviously it's been a long long time if this was something that was really anybody's ball you know in troop rotation was correct i'm sure as i said there'd be hundreds and thousands of cases involving this because you're granting immunity their inspection included safety but i think it's it's important when it comes to said they have no special duty and they cited that case something versus condo hospital i looked at the briefing there is nothing about