down to zero in the parking lot in inches the crux of the matter in on the facts here is that they are taking that is the apple leaves are taking the high preferential testimony of mr warren full as plaintiff's husband as gospel here in terms of he said it was about and a half but he wasn't manager rain he wasn't even sure where she fell and so when we look at what is truly admissible evidence this fall testified and he deposition that the differential was anywhere from three to five inches she didn't measure it either but she fell so that her body landed on top of the sidewalk and half still left her with permanent injuries so what i believe it is is that when we look at this course the trial court looked at it and said well you know it's it's less than two mentions but the trial court did make a record of this summary and we're here to know anyway so this court gets to look at what are we really doing in terms of s that was that page three fifty three and three sixty four the common law record and i cited that in my reply brief where she clearly indicated she when she tripped she went down deposition that differential was three to five inches that was her best estimate she noted and that's ok three fifty four three sixty four three fifty three and three sixty four the record three fifty three and three sixty four question was mr cozies question was did you see in your mind what must have caused her fall well yeah it was very apparent to me question what do you think it was well from the curb so he's talking about this curve there on the side was like an inch and a half that wasn't paid it didn't say it was an inch and a half and vertical displacement is said to mention a half it wasn't a painted you have to go where is there a discrepancy it becomes a jury question it's up for the jury to the side what is this high differential and quite frankly by the time the photos were t who know what happened are mrs fall and her husband tangentially because he didn't see her fall he went around one side of these large pillars that hold up the walkway of rough and she went to an angle coming out this ramp and they were about eight nine feet apart and he never saw our falling tell she didn't show up on the other side of the column and he testified he then went around and there she was lying face down that's where i believe summary judgment should not have been granted it's a very wise and because of the repairs made so quickly afterwards there's no way to ever know what it was in terms of putting a the entrance to the traffic or other aggravating factor which we have a number of aggravating factors here we had rain misses for sad she had gone in and out of that store several hundred times over her time here in bloomington but she never came at that ramp from a noble week angle she didn't see it in fact she characterized it just ended up being asphalt on asphalt there was no markings nothing to differentiate that there was a height differential and we're in an overcast cloudy rainy day and she was moving quickly to try to get in out of the rain  in fact i find it rather unusual that someone was right behind her not her husband and when she went down to the guy instead of offering assistance stepped right over her as he went on into the store so i believe there are a number of aggravating factors president plus then we have the holdings in the  versus harris bank case which there was just three eighths or something of an inch that was actionable because right in front of the door of the bank and bad person the lady in question who fell had been in an hour that bank at least once a week for five year which means she was in and out of there hundreds of times it's so close to the facts on this case it's almost   question here what we have is a situation where when we're in a commercial area there's more traffic than honest city sidewalk out  cities or municipalities or private organizations after the fall of their sidewalks in pristine condition which is an impossibility given our weather and strange here in illinois however when it's right in front of your ranch and all they had to really do here was just paint some yellow paint on this edge and it would have stood out like a sore thumb then if somebody  different facts situation why weren't you looking but here it's blending asphalt on asphalt and you can't see the hype differential and that's a jury question it should come by way of some  there's just no argument about well here we've got two people saying different heights and it's up to a jury to determine what those high are and i think it's very telling that this is full of very clear she might not have been very articulate in explaining the energy of a ramp she called it a crack and she called the whole well for her and now your head something and down you go and shatter your arm and i think in about much of anything and but the bottom line you know as we still have this this back could have been mark and in fact if we look around just out the windows here you will see those markings right on the streets there where there is a high different and that's not little or no bird to a whether it's a municipality or to a private company to to do that just just warn people that that things there and while i can't use the repairs as proof of negligence i certainly know what the law is  differentiates i'm not arguing with the the minimalist rule and the law for quite some time but i am suggesting strenuously that there are reasons to vary from that to an amount just in the case law itself because you read the the holdings in bledsoe and an location and proximity to the entrance and that it was a commercial area as opposed to a residential area and i think that makes a huge difference because that is your typical sidewalk ramp where it's cut down and to the concrete to come close to flush the gutter on the street and that's you don't attack that part come have to have a angle you only income if that sprayed on because there are her along the sides and so that has nothing whatsoever to do  with what we have here this was a ramp of expanded some ten feet out into the parking lot and when you come up from the siding you can't see the high differential it's a recipe for a fall walking towards the store we know that there was some bantering going on between the two of them some joking around as they were walking from their car through the parking lot and we also know that she found we know that he didn't see  we also know that after the incident when they were in the emergency room that's when she told her husband that her look at on the pants something her foot stabbed she didn't know and wh staff she wasn't really sure and that it's not until after the incident when they both go back and he takes photographs and she goes back with that they determine well we believe this must be the nothing like that initially because she didn't see this crack in the or the broken piece of asphalt in the parking lot where were her foot got caught up on we have on the testimony of her husband that this area where she was an inch and a half and right i think what the plaintiff counsel is referring to when he says how there's a differentiation as to how you you know it could be three inches to five inches i think when you take a look at the end of mrs fulton step assertion transcript when she starts talking about that she was really talking about the height from basically the ranch from where else flush with the parking lot and that's in the duty part of the cause of action or is part of the proximate cause if at all you know it could be a combination of all how you look at it i mean the way that i look at it charges that you do have a be sustained because i do the care the show is that what you're saying there is no duty to that there is no duty to to maintain your premises and a perfect so we have to make sure that there is no unreasonable risk of harm told and given this light and per faction of one to one and a half inches as testified by mr falta that's that this wasn't a higher plane at all if anything their testimony was it was a spring call it was a light messed up to the point where she wasn't even caring and them she wasn't having a half an hour had  say covering her son and mr fulton even testified that they were walking at her normal pace so i don't believe the rain and all that sounds would be constituted or could be considered an aggravating factor and other i to is she didn't know there aren't any people in the area at the time of her so if you don't even know that there's anyone in the area at the time of the fog how can you consider that as an aggravating factor because she didn't consider it as an aggravating factor we know that  if you came to the conclusion that this take a look at other factors and there are any other aggravating factors involved and the case has before our eyes to see whether or not there is a cause of action and our case if we take that analysis that i know other aggravating that exact way and what happened her from got caught on something that was a demand in this condition and because it was so slight as testified by her husband we don't have a duty to maintain our monitored for defects whereas if it was a space from this podium to the front of the bench there that's the only space that was available to get into that and here we have this edge of this said it wouldn't have been a big deal to fix that it's right from the door what are you thinking in a sense of what the court was saying fix it it's right there it's not two blocks away ou right clear across a parking lot somewhere where you wouldn't normally see it and so for that reason i really think that council is stretching stretching the facts here  she said mrs fulton had to go back to determine where she fell later no her testimony in her deposition was i was half on the sidewalk half on the ramp she knew exactly where she went down and wasn't like she went ten more staff before she fell down she went down right smack when her foot caught and that was right where the curb meet the of the ramp and she said that elevation was between five i mean tween three and five inches and that is clear testimony from the person who actually knows where she fell mr fult not seeing her fall had no idea where she fell and yes as you go down the ramp it gets to one and a half to nothing but he did know where it was and we don't know from his testimony you got a gas there is a specific state i can't write off the top i have to say which common law record page it was which says we were trying to get in and out of the web and so while they were not running day darker days when the sun starts to set the whole thing becomes dark now you really got a problem i mean why doesn't have a yellow reflective pain on it i mean that's some some kid in the back of the store with a bucket an brush and he could have done that ten minutes and then finally counsel said that she didn't know if other persons were present but then how could she testify he stepped over her if she that this court carefully consider the i can't bank harris can't bank and the lead so because those two cases out of everything that's been cited by both parties really ho down and what is going here and let's it was about the burden to the landowner is this a big deal or not and it wasn't a big deal just go fix it and you be fine