a corporation that was run by your alleged defendant and then your alleged defendant owning a corporation or a b or owns the property in question at this wouldn't fly simply because having a softer workman's comp claim can't sue in court records well that's right so therefore the only status of the defendant would be as a landlord not as an that correct ok and if the lease doesn't indicate that the landlord controls the premises how is it that the than all the other tenants have and all the other tenants are owned by the same person what was on the alleged reach of duty or the duty of the breach thereof was the head controlling the way in which ladder that might be what was the landlord's duty that he allegedly bridge sure no one but we argued that the landlord causing us to dish to begin with by setting up the premises to open and close that line but i can't cheer that's the issue to me i understand what you're saying i'm trying to use the that there is no testimony in which the player or anybody said mr holden should required to do something by the defendant who directed her to do it with the defend his knowledge and understanding of they have now the defendant and they know that he has it's foreseeable to them that the planet had to step say the employee should have started moving his st of all that was placed there before even sort of working there i think that's again missing the point as well i think the verge should be on the person who placed the furniture their head or their closets th ever raised and the answer i believe still no because in the worker's comp claim there's not an issue of who gave the order and the question isn't it may not have been an issue because it wasn't in contention it was uncontroverted it was agreed to it was stipulated that it was the employer who made the orders which meant that unless of course his job description also requires h go around and see to it that all the lines here on the entire floor for that business are close i don't see why this wouldn't be a statement made by the employer to the lawyer your plate of that this is in fact in the scope of employment because a proper defense would have been i never told him to hold any hope to this effect i actually told him not to do it i did it as my as i in my status as landlord i wanted him as as a landlord that i wanted him to do that now there i could see where it least your positions would be consistent i hear your argument but we're going on the record of this case we're going we've got a record i'm going to be on the record so much as we're going to be walked up to that particular unit as soon as he crossed the threshold he became the manager of c r and the record reflects that the plaintiff was not in charge of closing the blinds for the whole building he didn't have to go around to every single east where he didn't listen to his name or he was worried about being evicted it was a commercial release he was worried about his of employers disapproval and that's exactly what's at issue here in terms of duty and he was correctly identified by the trial court who was responsible for creating this condition plaintiff is identifying for the panel that the dangerous condition that existed was the way the furniture was ranged in the room but the standard for whether there's a dangerous condition that's open an obvious reason a person tim trying to clarify in his own deposition what the difference between wilson property management and wilson management l z is and it was since resolved by plaintiff's counsel in his brief by saying that claims it was confused and thought that those  two separate entities when really the former did not exist so there is nothing in the record that supports the contention that bob was acting on behalf of those in management l l c and that's a legal question the commuters on the review here  record the trial court noted i don't see any and any duty in any manner whatsoever that the building owner has to maintain the interior of this lease premises or to direct any employee of the tenant in that particularly sprint's has to do or not to do to do something that's him acting as an employer the women are going to have really no recourse so they're looking for a reason that a person would do something if the landlord asked that would be the motivation wouldn't really be person as being a corporate entity so that for the benefit of this as all of the justices pointed out earlier it already had a worker's compensation case and humans are in compensated accordingly this is an indicative moment that illustrates their relationship and the relationship that you know the manager an employee relationship that they have even if this were to find that there's a duty and did agree with the plaintiff that some  to try to read the question of you can see is not a legal conclusion rather when there is some dispute as to the extent of the parties relationship exists and scope of e d c relationship or questions of fact to the jury to determine and i'm just quoting from it he's arguably had to establish facts that would sustain a judgment in your favor so in a short synopsis could you tell me what you believe that you could prove that would sustain the judgment to defend the lab or through a agent bob was aware of a potential