chewy issues of air that do page how she is claiming with respect to judge matsch and our ruling is basically first that she heard in the application of the destruction exception which is an exception to the rule of opening up information bearing on you should know what happened on the date of the fall or anything else related to that so mrs bachmann tends testimony i'm under speed so there is nothing that either one of the two sides contradicted and i bring that up restate that he brought up the fact that it is the trial court's responsibility to weigh the credibility of the witnesses test but under these circumstances the way they did not take place because there is no dispute between them they were both testified to different she's so obviously because there's the illinois supreme court recently ruled on the bronze is in november two thousand and fourteen runs versus contributory negligence so and she basically did that much in one paragraph she sat there in and said well i find that even though it was open obvious that the plan was just that distracted and there are there's no or not it's because the distraction from an external source or they're not that should be something that's reasonably foreseeable this case is very much like the crimes case in the sense that the plaintiff just chose to look elsewhere she made the choice has not been still alive and well and i think the court failed to sit there and say yes the condition and again the character of the holes were not in dispute they were depicted well enough and  issues just because somebody there's nobody there stands hot you can't go there that there are things stopped from going into an area that makes them somehow intended and that's not the case with all the c laid out the facts of the case pretty well on this day particularly linda was walking to get her mail which was across the street and you know i wish it was i asked why the mailboxes work off the street but if you do look at the google had to make you turn up the next street and and come back around but you know we know that all the mail boxes are on the one side of the street so or if you get to the mailbox linda walks across the street at the edge of her driveway supreme court dealt with this the more facts in that the plaintiff who runs was first of all she never said she was just looking at that door there's no evidence of any actual distraction except her keeping these streets in proper condition and they're found out that they're not intended user when they need to walk in the street to go get the mail they're saying i pay taxes and justice even actually had this issue with this doing in the justice how these taxpayers feel if their taxpayer money would be going to keep these streets you know safe for vehicular use but when they need to go in the street you know there are a lot because they're it's a case by case basis you look at the facts of each particular case in this particular case it would be foreseeable that someone might call you know any better or a mother's name and when they're outside mr school mentee it s the self in their own personal safety and that when you're looking at the question we'll see ability you'd be trying to think of what kinds of things would be foreseeable that would be sufficiently serious that a person would disregard their own safety in their duty to have to care for their safety because of that distraction on so it seems like it ought think that if you saw the billing i would be sufficiently distracted that you would fall over something her run into something that was open and acting to try or fact have the best opportunity to determine that in this case it was matter where there's you know intersections or stop lights across walks within a certain distance of where this where the person cross the street and it shows the cross may block sometimes they were hit by they had nothing to do with the defendant sometimes in one case they tripped in the actual median in the middle of street another time it was on a country road were the court are you sure the court the cases you know go back to that proposition that you know look at the property itself and and google maps was nice enough to give us a shot of the property yeah small county road there's no sidewalks there's no