public project but it very clearly states and this this this this was ignored by the trial court unfortunately it very clearly states that if you once you've done your planning and your design if you actually carry out if instruction of the project and you do anything as a result of their construction you create a dangerous condition then you are liable that's exactly what section three death one of th airport and what happened is they had a temporary terminal and a temporary loss holding zone for passengers which on one side was exposed to through traffic and someone in the plaintiff got  over and they said it true the city had no duty to make this improvement but they did make it and when they made it they located the bus wardens on which itself was perfectly fine but it was so in such a ways to create a danger for people awfully on the premises so it's not correct to say that the defendant only improved the  side of the road it is correct to say that they only improve each side of the road but there's nothing in the logic or common sense already already or many of the cases cited it would suggest that that somehow get of some kind of a tiny was able to tell that the road was changing from one surface condition to with a different surface condition that it was too late and he hit the loose gravel and he went off the road and got hurt very badly and liability was was extended an extra two miles to the edge of the townships jurisdiction don't care about that what we care about is the area of transition from blacktop so incredible this is an area measure it all common sense for or the testimony of expert witnesses many experts testified in her mini will the court talks about her testimony how many of the court never heard her testimony that might think what some dangerous about it were a no two six ninety version could ever by the surging toward immunity so that right now where there is a map where there is an assertion in the complaint an allegation of an cannot be negligence and so you look at that would you agree at least part of the will cain is related  duty to warn i have no duty to put up a sign or to put a barrier so you won't at the because clearly section three there are four very strongly any nice of the defendants for any of liability from failure to put up a sign or a this who's to say that this is not a dangerous condition of us have seen it ourselves we have heard the testimony of competing expert witnesses this is we have to pass on whether or not a on how can this court affirm that i think even if we fancy engineering degrees and whatnot it's not it's not the role of the court at this time to pass on those facts unless you can say with certitude that there is no way this you did something before there was no danger you came in you did something when you left now there's a danger and it killed my father and so judge we want to know why can't we get with those trials toward the extremes to be in our favor i plan or design if its appearance permits use that unsafe condition has been created well there goes on negate the immunity provided in in the first part of this section the predi requiring that there be an attentive hour at the terminal to assist passengers getting on the bus but they wouldn't get it by the riffraff in the facts in a case where there were no attendants out there and there was no supervision so very clearly the city took precautions they knew that there was a problem out there in the created this temporary terminal they knew there was a problem they tried to take precautions they didn't in a negligent fashion and that's why there's no muni opportunities to address the allegations in the complaint and as your honor touched on just a second ago amend their complaint if they wish i believe all defendants in this case filed combined motions under six nineteen point one which included the six fifteen from on it to straight from all unsupported statements of law as well as the six nineteen motion and when those are presented to the court in conjunction as they were in this case i believe i judge bachmann coach this correctly by examining the case heard the complaint hers and determining what conclusions of walk your view you have what facts striking unsupported illusions of law and then basing basically what is left of the complaint if there is anything here does it state an action that would not be immunised completely under the toward immunity  possess a complaint state who did the road improvement the complaint as it's written suggests that all defendants to partner wrote the materials that were submitted by the county so the deposition of david winters county's engineer focused that i don't think that matters at the end of the day there's no dispute that we had done the complaint suggests you know that a long time prior to january nineteenth two thousand seven this work was done we have to look at exactly what was done and then exactly what the plaintiff intends with teenagers about it and that's exactly what the judge in the court below did the we improved the road to me east of the intersection we admit that it's not a question i have no quarrel with the standard that all well played facts are deemed admitted for purposes  plaintiff was asked repeatedly in the court although many of the same questions that they asked that is it correct to say that the only improvement is only the side of the roadway yes they've admitted that the dangerous condition in and of itself we're surrounded by thousands of dangerous conditions in our state and neighboring states today because road surfaces quite often change at intersections what the that was asked this morning they admitted the unimproved roadway to the west itself was not dangerous that was admitted the loads and conceded here again that that gravel roadway stands as it did on the day of the accident as it had for decades immunity for every one of the items that they touched on here today and they admit is much but then having admitted that it's fully in the eyes they come back and suggest but if you look at the totality of the circumstances that should be act they have not allege that there was anything done at all let alone done done in appropriately on the gravel side because there was no construction when the pavement or worse are the worst for sure road occur from the removed was actionable without signing up for a warrant that was refused that was found to be completely covered by the court of this court in its decision sided with favor the havens versus harris township case from the third district which talks in terms of discretionary new government led cities have to be allowed suppression in what they choose to upgrade and i will grant you that if they choose to upgrade something they have to do it reasonable but there's no pleading and there's concessions here in this case that everything that was done was done appropriately they take issue with what wasn't done and if you read between upon is the improvement caused injury in herman there have been freshly laid gravel is not compacted moped came along and hit four inches of loose gravel that had been itself which is all that has been played here when you remove the conclusions then we use governmental entities are in trouble because it brings into play arguments to put up signage to put up lightings out in the middle of nowhere reveals that it was an automatic approval no matter what the thing looked like he was going to stamp it which makes it stereo as to his part i'll let your honour's we don't have a lot about that in the brief i'll let you ours except there but where we're really focused focusing on the