not just by responding no but by requiring him to strap in tarp the truck loaded before getting his bill of lading before leaving the premises and am not allowing him to do it inside this is something newdow which combined with the high winds and newton was well aware of the high winds not only was it obvious to everyone they had been blowing all day but mr cholesterol specifically told them hey it's too windy out and i can i  case and in this case as in the present case placing a burden on the landowner to take precautions against injury is consistent with public policy of ensuring a safe with the work being done there that he's doing this for the company or is he doing it for the person who will receive the products from here or we deliver just doing it for the company the company is shipping out  in these other cases the injured persons were not necessarily employees of the landowner either there are people who i was really trying to understand it is more from a practical perspective but i know i don't know anything about the trekkie and foreseeability in this case it was certainly reasonably foreseeable that mr last drive would see the strap and tarp the truck loaded outside unprotected in the high winds because you know likely and reasonably foreseeable the apps alone trucker trying to strap in tar a big flatbed truck full of products was going to be blown off its high points you know knew specifically pages to seventy one through two seventy four you'll see that those employees never say in their deposition that they inform mr newdow that he could come back later and strap in tarp and have mr who goes on affidavit and pages  important you could come back later he was told you can't do it can't do it inside order to get his truck out so they may have had a policy of allowing people to come back later but they did not  to the trucker until the truck load was strapped in tarp and i i believe the strapping in topping procedure only pertains to flatbed such as the kind of mr class from post driving and there's no evidence in the record that there were any other fla testified i think that it would be i don't remember the exact number but may have said something like fifteen minutes and there was argument by newdow that would take an hour or two and i'm down another factor a third factor that the court has to consider is the magnitude of placing a burden on the landowner to guard against injury and in this case separating would be minimal this is a procedure almost a class i was asking for is a procedure that newdow already had in place for rainy and snowy days whenever it rains whenever it snows you know not only allows but requires truckers to strap and tuck their loads inside that same building before they even leave the building so it's obviously very doable for them and it's not going to break their business as they argue and moreover this is not a mom and pop shop that's going to fold a little extra burden on new lives on the affidavit and the record shows that this is a big business that's got sales revenues of over sixty million dollars a year there's no evidence that requiring newdow to allow stripping entire being inside and a few days out of the year that on a windy would be any significant another thing that the court has to consider is a consequence of placing the burden on the defendant landowner protect against the injury and in this case in cases such as this the only person could protect against this injury w be the landowner the truckers can protect themselves against us if the landowner says sorry you have to take your truck outside and strap entire outside regardless of the weather regardless of it's raining or snowing or lightning or tornado there's really nothing the truckers can do about it they can't protect themselves they have nowhere to go only the landowner can protect against this injury and that the danger of serious injury is his obvious in this case there was a very serious injury just a cluster of crushed both of his heels a car in surgery and both he's broke his right arm get over a hundred thousand dollars in medical bills and was unable to work for five months to his v being blown off or if it's even slipping off the top of the truck while trying to straighten turf it would cause very serious injuries as it did in this case there was clearly evidence in the record to show  language problem and some of the questions and answers are simply not what newdow makes him out to be and again any reasonable inferences have to be construed in favor of the respondent which is in this legal obligation to allow truckers access to his facility at new joe's respect expense upon the truckers request no such legal obligation exist further the condition at issue is a natural condition it is not a premises defect nudo did not cause any hazard on its premises and newdow had no control over mr kallstrom in this case he was an independent contractor so  the case newdow was busy that day then there was a lot of trucks it's evident the record of page one sixty one it's also evident in the record of pages two twelve there are two sixteen i'm sorry two seventy two and t seventy four dead if if a trucker believe that it was not safe to strap and target their load outside that the work if they notified the workhouse employees they would work them into the schedule one time allowed new do udo scales one scale and so this would have taken up the scale for all the other trucks waiting to be loaded and to go out that day so they told them to pull out of the still area and then potentially if it was too that if a trucker tells them it's too hazardous i did it does not clear whether he was actually told that but he does say that he did not expect a target inside he says it usually starts outside and he doesn't expect anything because it depends on the company so there's no expectation or duty that these companies have to allow truckers to strap in tar trailers inside well i get that but the player in the premises until he has struck hard if that's correct doesn't that play some obligation liability on your   no your honor and the reason is the condition we're talking about here is hazardous when conditions it's open and obvious to everyone his counsel admitted everyone knew it was dangerous so newdow had a reasonable expectation that he would protect himself it was if it was too dangerous he wouldn't do it participate in a very dangerous activity you know what i'm saying is if he doesn't know he can hold back in to do it we're saying he's disposed to stay there all night  takes all night for the wind not necessarily your honor although they record indicates he could have as he stayed there the night before and preparation but the the point is or the point i'm trying to convey is that if he felt it was too dangerous outside to strap in type is loaded even if he he didn't know he could go back and he could have quite an ask somebody and said hey it's really dangerous it's really windy out here is there any way you can work man and then had they said no maybe that argument would hold more way but that that never occurred he just and further and the record let me double check my scythe ation at page one fifty eight of the record and one sixty nine it indicates that mr cholesterol was not under any strict deadlines deliver these products and he said he didn't have time to wait and when asked why he didn't have time to wait he said i wanted to work not wait now as an independent contractor drives and be driving these products his time is important because he can get back and get the next job and that that's the underlying issue here is he didn't want to wait a couple hours or overnight because you know his time is money and i understand that but that doesn't mean that newdow has to absorb the expense of stopping their operations in order to accommodate his business interests and as i stated before that the hazardous conditions the winds were open and obvious to everyone which means the undergo a lot of if there's an open obvious condition the defendant premises honors generally under no duty to remedy that condition unless the delivery encountered exception logistics could have according to the seventh circuit called the trucking company and asked not to you ask the trucking company not to contract with the point f for t n t jobs in the future and the seventh circuit said that that's not enough to create an economic compulsion under the deliberate encounter section here it would be even less of an impact because even if newdow would have called you know trucking and asked not to use mr cholesterol in the future  mr cluster of testifies in the record that the overwhelming majority of his jobs were with those in which he could pick up his load in chicago and he took this job only because chicago's in a dry period so to in order to prove proximate cause you need cause and back and legal talk now for cause and back mr cluster of admits that nothing other than the wind caused this fall nothing new though did cause fall he says that in this deposition only the way so there's no need to have no control over anything he did when he had to do it and the tools he used so there's no cause in fact new simply created a condition in which trough was injured and his own actions and the forces of the one were superseding causes to the condition created and going back to a few  courtesy and the high winds and the the real rationale behind the rain and snow inside is because newdow sells what panels and four panels so they get wet they get damage and it's just not it's economically viable for every time it rains or snows in springfield for new dos ship products to be damaged and that's the reason that they allow that secondly and the record of pages one sixty two one sixty three one sixty seven one eighty one he already did that and they refused him how many times is he required to ask how many times as he required to tell them his dangerously windy out here i need to strap a tire inside trucks get to be strapped or tarp on the scales this is a big building parks drive in their car drive into the indoor loading dock where the new employees load the products on top of the trucks then the truck is driven inside the building over to the scales work the new employee weighs truck and if it's overweight as it was in this case the new employees and remove some of the products from the truck there's no evidence that this building had nowhere or that he had at the option of waiting until they were done for the day and come back and strap and sign they didn't tell him so they had a duty of care at the breach that duty and their newest negligence