testified that had they seen mr cure receive performing that trying an eye on the date of the accident in the way he did they wouldn't have stopped him and they wouldn't have told him to do anything differently because they didn't believe it was manager of the building it was chased cia's responsibility to make sure that those my crews were functioning and safe to work with i just i'm trying to have a hard time to articulate how brain exercise supervisory responsibility with reasonable here it seems to me to be a concession that they had controlled media good reason which jury to decide for a jury to decide whether or not those experts that we presented at bay presented their credible or not edible whether the nap was experts wait based on the health of their resume or lack thereof should be consulted to decide whether the issue of control has been met absolutely here carney said it's the best indicator but also  because someone else created it so some something on the floor which is dangerous or creative slippery initially read or someone dropping a piece of wood on the floor and someone and whether or not there is actually this meeting sessions he is asking in terms of the ways that require stop us from doing his work that a reasonable sort of dual band saw this me and sticking his hand into out the electrical fires they had they were within their contractual supervisor on the job site and that's part of the reason why they retained their lecture co had done titles and many many times before and ultimately with regards to control the work being the safety plan it doesn't matter if as many quotes are said even if you have a comprehensive safety counsel in terms of he did it here you're right but they were very clear in their depositions that that provision wouldn't apply because it's talking about not working and addressed equipment and they repeatedly said you're not working at a work the bay has the right to do surveys but that doesn't give rise to a level of control because it necessary to a step to trigger liability for fourteen analysis way doesn't change their work to do their work entirely in their own way if the jury the work and the way i think the answer to that is yes but it does go all sorts of the notice requirement which has been a big issue of dispute between the parties and while you know council was correct  that says if a contractor performs work i'm reasonably substate you if you are sort of know about the way that what was being done there will be liable if you had the opportunity to or the kind that you have to take it as a failure and at the end of the day we're right have to keep coming back to is before this project before that safety plan was a place that i felt for the place where it was performing the time in the same way they were i agree that fact questions should go to the jury but i don't agree that experts can create fact questions and just because an expert provides a paper that says that irrespective of the base contracts that are h not entirely free to do the work in their own way there is a threshold which you have to pass it's just that any right to stop work or to supervise work or to provide a safety plan which would make you know they may or may not be strictly followed they're in charge of carrying out accidents brokers in illinois have the right to understand that they go into dangerous construction projects and someone may be there for their well being therefore they can