well yeah ok so so if somebody fires if you hire somebody to build a garage on your property and somebody is in here and the contractor doesn't have worker's compensation the homeowners liable i don't think that the homeowner in a residential situation falls in the same context as these two women that run a commercial property business i don't judge and that's one of the arguments that we make in our grief is that because of the manner of their interest prize their commercial rental property and again they own six buildings which they all run out to tenants for commercial business reasons these are you know reza houses that they were not the people it's not a situation where they're running out a house to somebody that person then is taking essentially constructive possession these are commercial buildings that have multiple units which are printed out to commercial businesses in fact this particular building where this incident occurred as i believe five or six commercial particular part of the provision i mean what they cite is that this subsection does not apply in any case where the accident occurs elsewhere than on him or about the media's premises we're talking about a back wall and i don't know pictures made it into the record  you're talking about for back wall of the building and the garage does not go all the way up to the top of the back or the rope line of this building so you've got a stretch of i believe ten to twelve feet of building a back wall that's on top of this fla horizon which is where the seed was painting when this electrocution occurred so it's not a separate part of this building or even a separate part of the back wall in fact it's no different than if i stood here and reached over to paint it wall  just i don't think that it is an issue in this particular case because of the location of this wall that we're talking about in the garage that we're talking about think of it in terms of the letter or off i phone it's a wall and he's standing on a flat road to paint the wall when  court judge said he was the process now that the right judge said that he if if that was outside the scope of the work and i guess i have a backup obit the circuit court was never ruling on the issue of whether or not groom our employers it was a promise liability case and the court was finding that there was no duty of care owed to mr deatherage my processor's because he's saying it's outside of the scope of the work if we set us apart because really whether or not there's a duty of care over not is has no bearing whatsoever relevance to whether or not these people are statutory lawyers the issues of scope of the work control of the work and things like that were talked about  circuit court and i think even quoted by counsel in their free that the judge is saying that control of the work willing to make changes to the work being able to inspect the work in his  opinion did not or his ruling i should say did not go far enough to show that they would have there was a would have created a duty on themselves to anticipate that mr deford would have been electrocuted by these overhead power lines that connected to the building do they have a person who i think they do or when i think when they have a business of rental properties and they've got six of these things and it's council point out every they have a family history of being in and out of the insurance business and having a lawyer the family and all these by hiring someone as an employee or they can someone absolutely and that's what they did in this case and in fact they did was they contracted with someone who had no workers compensation well is that back to the point is why do they why is one a that in the event that your sub contractor or your general contractor doesn't have insurance or you carry on one of these businesses that you're automatically responsible by this is really an ongoing business is a cancer and there are these people who  find that the commission and the circuit courts opinion on this matter the ruling was and reasonable and did not or they got it wrong because they didn't take a reasonable position on the facts that were at hand and again i think that's what the the men are next and the groups did in this particular case was that the they had these buildings they ordered work to be done to maintain these buildings they hired a contractor who then in turn hired a sub contractor to do work that had there was no insurance i think that the code the act i mean it's clear that in that event that they are liable because they carry on a business that's one of these and even though you don't this is done by the vetting of construction work the businesses  renting the tennis in they hired somebody if you say occasionally to do work for me to maintain i guess i i think maintaining a property that you run out as a business venture goes hand in hand with with obviously in the business of renting out the buildings and obviously maintenance has to be done on the buildings and the whole point of this is you contract it out he'd be leaving if you did it yourself correct and it well it that then you're going to be liable because the person who's doing it is your employee believe which brings up the whole not start but if you do contract it out as you say it then in order to be liable under three you actually get to be the business of meeting buildings right and the construction company so i don't feel like doing it myself so i hire mr jones to do it for me and i'm in the business of maintaining buildings so i'm going to be liable on you're a sole proprietor with no employees under your direct employ you know if you're an individual business owner you're specifically excluded from the work and that's what it's for excess specifically with regards to matter neck groom they have no obligation to have workers compensation insurance and they're trying to say this just the opposite by bringing this into some sort of statutory employer and really act and sort of a period of argument  approach yes and there's testimony to that effect that says that they file their tax returns individually that they have nobody you know always everything that's done the building this is contracted out it's sent to contract so they're not in there they don't do any of the kind of themselves they all send it out to people or companies to do with on their behalf contract now it's a whole point of doing contracting and he  you know the whole point of this was there are a whole bunch of leaps in this argument made by the missionary in this case and i don't know how they get from eight to there are a lot of intermediary things that you would have to get to where they go to make better making room statutory employees under the workers compensation act and there is just no baxter's no evidence that they put in this somehow bring this to that conclusion and really relationship between tipton and the p c s and there is zero evidence or zero argument to support the fact that the deceased was an employee of tempted because if you think about only again that he became abundantly clear by his best friend bruce harris saying yeah you know you wake up every day you may call and say where can i make the most money on this given day most days it was in the ripping business on this particular day relationship there's really nothing there stamps in employment relationship between pippin and sees so even if it matched the statutory employer position that they're claiming on the path of grooming matter  anybody's talked about here the whole purpose of the filing in the workers compensation commission was for them to proceed on a four d adding account and circuit court complaint barring employers who don't have insurance and that statute says that they have to knowingly still have insurance and that's another mission that they didn't knowingly fail to have insurance i mean how are they supposed to know that closing i think the most important thing here is that there is no employment relationship between the seed and tipped and therefore you can begin with everything flows from that correct the other interesting thing that i pointed out in my brief was here is the part of the statute that says under a three that the statutory employers are liable to pay compensation in any company or association undergo authorized under the laws of the state of illinois to insure the liability i don't know that section applies to an individual i believe that statute does say that that attaches to the worker's compensation insurance  which is another interesting thing about a three they're asking for personal liability against women that they're asking to directly attack their own personal assets were i think a recess something opposite i think it says if it catches to the insurance not to the individual if you look at a painting this set you there's no case law on that but it's an interesting thought in that the steps toward ordering the whole purpose of the workers compensation act was to attach insurance and maybe that way the insurance companies can often say well he's not an employee of this person but the policies are obviously written to say that they have to apply if there's coverage on there and that's why it catches the insurance and not the individual and it does a water too so tipton has to be in the business and so do they in order for them to be liable under one eighty three and in this particular case and if you can overcome the about a while ago about this insurance issue and in the company of insurance and specifically we're talking about section one eighty three and he's full of it in his brief but i don't think that that has to be interpreted in the way that he is leading or believe it should interpreted in his arguments and in the brief and i think what the section means is that if you have a subcontractor like mr tipton or you have another contractor like mr etheridge and they don't have insurance and they have a contract with an insurance company