even part there for some period of time as the city was filling all the power tools on this relatively short street between the medical buildings and on the street to the west so that on the day of the accident she was expecting that tended to use or area and so you're saying that the law is that it's not intended for a person to enter and exit their vehicle around the immediate area of their vehicle the street pursuant to the municipalit it to be used for parking there for the plaintiff is not intended to be there of the street you know your honor she is permitted to park there and therefore permitted to walk in the area however be due to the illinois supreme court cases which are binding on the scorch regarding the the parameters and which this court should look at to look at the intent upon which the municipality it is looking at the streets  anchored into a creek so you had a person basically walking on a road not someone accessing your vehicle and once again your honor and this is where the plaintiffs attempting to distinguish each case upon its facts however these are principles of laws that each case cites upon the other to attempt to carry forth the principles of laws that are in the rule of law applicable to three dash  user however a permit user of property is not necessarily an intended user and that is the distinction in this case again this was furthered in one thousand nine hundred eight by the supreme court and or reiterated the distinction between intended and permitted use and found no affirmative manifestations that the township intended rather than simply permitted bicyclists to use the road and bridge where the accident and the city provides space for them to park there otherwise they would be obstructing traffic why they are they intended to park there if the city permits them to acquiesces and it doesn't forbid them to the fact that parking is prohibited in one and one area doesn't necessarily mean it's permitted in another the like when you put up a sign that says prohibit it we really need i but we're not to be too much attention to it and that might be the case your honor the burden of placing signs all throughout the city where we really need no parking would be i've heard it on the city just as the allowed permitted to to walk upon the streets it's not against the law however if you can't jail that's true your honor he'll cross and recross while you're violating the law and that would be part of the public outside the crosswalk by her tola established an exception in that there is an exception for people who are legally parked and using the area around the vehicle to access their vehicle to entering marked indication in this case there is no marked indication that it is allowed there was no marked parking there were snow meters there was nothing to show in and that parking was permitted  the importance of this case even though the supreme court has emphasized that a plaintiff used must meet both criteria in order to fit within section basis and this case there is no such policy that the residents must park on the city street the tet put forth by the plaintiffs one of gallic but that's not the test being put forth by the and his brother brought out the wood stick and measuring tape to take the pictures of the pothole and as the court can clearly see from the plaintiff's own exhibit the photographs provided in the defend hundred two through one of three the bottom of the plant used which would you know the top of the pothole falls far below the two inch markings on the ruler used by the plaintiff's family and i understand the plaintiff attempts to distinguish this as a a deviation in the street doesn't it make the principle of line more or less applicable i would argue that based on the picture which pursuant to likely said that a permitted intended use around the immediate area of illegally parked car means that they are in fact in oh facts where someone was not legally hurt but court stated in its opinion again the general rule that if you are legally parked and are entering and exiting that  road obviously wasn't legally parked you ran into the bridge and to make matters worse for this poor soul he then fell off the bridge down below so he was not in her area but rather he just happened to hit a bridge and fall of the bridge i was just as family submit that the burden is on the city to prove that she was not legally or city has admitted that she was legally parked and i think that's the end of that matter