different than just the regular duty are a little less of the duty of the common law it's ours trees if you really didn't have a duty to trim your trees generally unless there was maybe a small bit to develop this case they have the absolute right and duty to make sure that their roadways clear which would permit them any time to go in and trim trees that were hanging over the roadway that where th that only three people that actually works located essentially admitted that the tree was dedicated was their responsibility but there is a testimony that was so there's no information one where in the other that this was even  property and they're saying that the universe is actually a pad of the creation of the law that harks had a duty only extending to those individuals that it and to use that's correct that's what they're the injury has occurred on the property so there's never any issue for the supreme court to say well ok it was an apostate there was a duty to make sure that the property in good condition this case we never got to that no one's ever argued that this is adjacent property or that so i think that this there's a little bit of a distinction there but here we go back to the initial set that we never get to article three unless the injury occurs in the use of public property do with this case because it doesn't follow the use of this the best case of the van meter and in that case the darien park a strict didn't have the gall to argue because the injury was off the public property that there are just  that you in any motion to reconsider again i could i could point those out to someone to be very happy to know that you know that you were to do originally and if there is one tell me about it now well there's in the motions reconsider there's a case from arizona there's at least five the injuries that bird in this case that there would be it would be reasonable for the orifice there to have some kind of system in place to make sure that the trees people on the road and you can plain as day you can see those trees and then you weigh that cost you know if we got to this is a fact issue worse if you weigh that cost against plant demolition derby on the roads of the state here obviously the cheaper version an easier version is to do a drive by that their expert indicated that he didn't think that was sufficient enough this is a pleading case that i mean you know we're not you're digging up all kinds of possibilities that could occur within the context of your complaint this is a pleading case she said you didn't stay but this is this is a kind of a and analyse this case because it involves property other than the property of the forest preserve district where the injury actually happened i needed fell off the forest preserve this is a duty case and count one is a common law negligence case count two was three one of two a day playing at the end of the day whether that was viable or not i mean i think is this case transgressed three want to doesn't create new duties we did them away if it exists it doesn't go away and that's really the logic here behind everything well i think the forest preserve district i don't want to put words in their mouth but they've been very consistent in their pretending that they want to hold o year you're saying if that immunity does want to land use it was absolutely one hundred percent not recreational property and it's one hundred fifty ninth street is what what all the the cases focus on you're talking about  and that's true we believe that there are two key provisions of the tart immunity act that apply here initially and consistently through this litigation we have focused on three dash one of six there is no dispute in this under one of three it's not is it in addition to our focus on one of sex it is our view and and the circuit court adopted this that under three death one of two there simply isn't  duty this case is is here on summary judgment where there was a finding that there was no duty under three dash one of two and and the cases and that and the language of three desh want to make very clear that the duty to maintain property and that's what this case is about its duty to maintain property extends only from a public entity to users of that public entities property and that cases are have gone on over and bed of the truck now we're back we've got a fire trucks out there you know that's where we're headed there's a fire truck a separate with faulty brakes which ordinarily the fire truck on the way to the fire would be a meal because it's in the process of going to a fire the foreseeability issue i suppose you wonder if you're under a duty to make sure that you don't have any dangerous trees on your property now you may have a defense because that is the old notice issue you know whether you had notice of the defective tree may have to do with an injury that occurred to an individual wasn't even on the forest preserve property he's driving along in his car and the tree falls on his car wrecks his car and seriously injured him and you're telling me that because legion with regard to the purpose of the tort immunity act and the notion that somehow this is not cut this result is not contemplated by the legislature or in their own act one of the tort immunity act this is exactly what the to act does contemplate in certain circumstances and i have seen claimants who will have no recourse against a public entity where they might report against a private entity and we we've had a case right here in our district case too was a personal injury court said not found immunity under the truck and unity and justice mcnamara cited do a couple of cases the done the fire protection park the strikes with respect primarily swimming pools and gymnasium equipment and things like that now because of the way it's written it sweeps the forest preserve district into it you much like the fighting cases the flooding cases do not involve recreational property i understand that what i'm getting at judge is fed the cases don't don't say that you must look at the site of where the accident bit you have to focus on the condition that the plaintiff has complained of is that condition part of recreational property so you have the sylvestre case which involves i think it's a car stop in the parking lot at soldier field  and in the court says well we know soldier field is recreational property but this isn't the parking lot and it's a car stop it's not something the people in gauging when we know they're going to sleep in the parking lot stuff we know naturally doesn't explode but goes up a quarter of a mile away and lands on top of a house and burns it down no liability because you're a recreational facility right i don't think so i argument that your lot your immunity extend this not just for they forced preserve district property but beyond that beyond what the w injured on a hay rack ride and they and they sued i think it was a park district and the park district offended with three dash one of six and the courts said wait a minute wait a minute what what's being alleged here is has to do with the conduct in the operation of the hay ramp and therefore it's not really a condition of of the property case like the brakes something like correct and that's the distinction but here we don't have that all we have is the part of the analysis at this at this stage what was with this one last question what is the meaning of the language in the act that says that the existence of the condition that it brings me to the last point that i want to make here on this which is that counsel has talked about motorists could be subjected to this type of dangerous or as a result of the circuit court's ruling and this is a case where the plaintiff developed some evidence that this tree straddled the property line is partly in the roadway right of way and the cases that they've cited few of these these court of claims case this talk about the duty of a public entity the state to to maintain its roadway and its roadway right of way and to protect people on the on the right of way with regard to trees and the plaintiff in this case ask for and was given leave to amend his complaint and name the department illinois department transportation as a defendant i would suggest to you that the plaintiff in this case and any other similarly situated motorist could bring a viable claim against that and fifty that has jurisdiction over the roadway in the roadway right of way and they didn't do that oh look this is interesting there except that i suspect that there's one of the protect you from any possibility because i've been driving down roads for a long time in fact there's one road right drive fairly regularly which goes right public i'm way is subject to liability for failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to persons using the highway so it's not putting it on the highway it's putting it on  kind of a situation i think that it has to end and that that's the only way to the only way to protect the forest preserve district maybe it's the only way to interpret three deaths one of the six consistently with the purpose i mean for to get into a few of them i may have underestimated or my response to the question i don't think the defense judy case can be had like pointing the finger at somebody else the fact in this particular case this case it doesn't apparently fall over all over what may or may not it's effect a show just from my perspective too to eliminate the fact that this is a seventy five foot tree in someone else's property off of the roadway that could clearly reach the occurred on that municipalities property and there was never an issue to that as to whether or not this was an exhaustive collection of duties or just never an issue that it was that's the fourth all right position or that this is an exhaustive exhaustive collection of bodies in one section well they're living in the universe of the duty in the cases in which the injuries occur on that property and he can't get past the heading of especially i understand the court's concerns but we're in the three one of two or three one six deeply here involve i think the best case that i may have underestimated when i was five two justices questions earlier about what the supreme court said regard to three one of sex in the universe or scope of community and how this is supposed to work about you know whether this is the said this is my preface and it's on page eleven to thirteen address this issue but additionally the supreme court specifically stated that quote resolution of this case depends on whether the site of the accident was public property intended or permitted to  he fire's case and i think just as kate was right on about the fireworks yampol and then again maybe good morning sounded like it did answer the question because fireworks are after somebody but in shooting off fireworks let's say you know what hearsay is that if it's  sessions i just have researched it but if you're looking at negligence claims it's an actor omission issue what feats of the same and that's what we have here we have five or ten years these folks doing nothing look at the tree and saying we're going to do nothing and it's the same thing in the  property defuse the recreational purposes you have to tell will watch only if the injury occurs on that property and that's what curb our talks about it focuses on the site of the accident if it's not or not focus on this is the location of the property in that's why i think the virus example is a great example the other case that's out there it's a federal court is that on the site but it's an indian reservation and there was somebody shooting a pistol on