normal then proposed a counter speed limit of ten miles an hour and term you can't do that allowed a speed limit itself is low so that's where i'm working with i doubt they came up postal for while he was standing on the roadway behind this disabled vehicle and the court of public works summarize it was nonetheless utilizing the street as a voter has not there's another case we cited where mirrors that also describe three court said with respect wrongly that this is really just a design case and it's not a case we are not complaining about signed the writ we're not complaining about how it was constructed originally well i think we'll all agree that or this case and what is before you there's a lot of issues and so to hit him on twenty minutes might be a little difficult but i'll do my brief states well plaintiff's case is grounded on that negligent failure of maintenance and is not grounded upon the construction of the bridge itself or on the danger involved in the they only allege design defects of the camelback bridge there is not one mention of failure to maintain signage or the traffic circle in fact there's no need for any signage but which the public works director testified that sign was there on the day of the accident is there today ten mile an hour going west bound because right at the bottom of the bridge there was a road you'll cross that was to slow traffic because of hillcrest crossing for gene you're right at the bottom of the bridge and so many people had hit it and plows had hit it in the wrong chunks of concrete that it didn't do its job it cost more pollution so that was the decision to take out that coming traffic calming circle i understand that but are you disputing opposing counsel's representations regarding what had to be put in place in order for the city to be able to keep this bridge yes that this city had it by series and a plan with i don't the last are the eastbound twenty mile an hour constructor maintained between a municipality and i'm down has nothing to do with a pedestrian who appears on the scene and the agreements to perhaps the cases are clear that if you look at so they look at the property itself sisk says we need look no further than property itself to determine the mean this is a pal of these manifestations of intent with regard to use of the property by the goes across and walkways back up to the other side of the bridge clearly show that the intent of the municipality was to not have the best reasons on the bridge there are no markings on the bridge for walkways there are no markings on the bridge for parking which would allow motorists in rest and eat grass clearly the municipality intent is that parade i doubt that mr reagan would disagree with anything that you just stated there he would just simply reply to this from playing out of the best that he was a motorist who was involved in a traffic accident and inspect for a coin size paint chip damage he has made himself that stream both miss layard and mr flynn testimony that they were familiar with the bridge had known it their whole lives when the accident occurred they could have moved the cars were not disabled not at all they could have moved their cars a little bit down and off to the side to get clear of the bridge they both testified that when they stop where they work and mr flynn got out he made himself a pedestrian cases cited by plaintiffs in their brief talk about motorists who got out of the car and were still motorists those cases were against the defendants whom or the other car who hit them when you're not talking about the tour immunity act section three dash one or two and you're talking about in this case miss by mr flynn did not become a pedestrian for purposes of this bias when she came over the hill and hit the back of this cause under the case law his case was good against dr vines she was in the in this these realities coming home from war when she came over that bridge and hit the standing half and the cases are clear that they're not against motor company where it says the person got out of the car and still no risk because you were defective auto her cost the product to become disabled requiring the person to get out those have nothing to do with the court immunity get that we're discussing about intended in permitted use or let me take this situation that you were maybe suggesting that this is and that is suggested here it was and there are mr plans are wasn't capable of being rather well let's say result let's say you have an accident where the cars are now you know ripple because of the  coalition itself and there's a concern about the safety of the other motor so mr plan in that situation gets out of his vehicle the check on the safety of the other motors or is suspicious that perhaps there green and it would have been a similar situation because green's car was disabled and he got out of the car interestingly enough there was no discussion until later cases about a minute in the end user in the green decision however when you get out on the bridge and there's no place for pedestrians it's like if your car becomes disabled and i'm fifty five and you have to get out of the car you get out stand in the traffic lane you get to a place of safety i'm just i'm trying to hone in on duty here and i'm trying to identify in the hypothetical i describe are you saying still in that situation  intended or permitted use or and there's also cases that talk about someone may be a permitted use there doesn't matter that that would be reasonably foreseeable that someone would need to because of an accident or because the car becomes disabled get out of their vehicle however that's still doesn't impede you liability under this sort of messiness so the fact that it's recently for civil doesn't make any difference is that your act this is i mean it could be reasonably forseeable that a little kid you know wanders under the street to somebody like the one case doesn't blow their for reasons whatever become disabled on a bridge and they'll have to get out that doesn't then may in their municipalities responsibility for their safety on the bridge but it just the foreseeability has to be something that you can carry cats having where is the duty i mean we're looking at foreseeability going back and imputing some duty but i'm sorry i may not be specific  decision to get out of the car without moving the car to a place of safety which they could have done is different than green green's car was disabled and had to get out just like justice is turner's hypothetical of a car  you're your own talking about the greenies in this situation we have here mr flippin clearly became a pedestrian when he got out of the car and didn't move it to us move it that the briefs are clear that we have alleged that anything that the city may have neglected to do was a created a condition it was not the proximate they were familiar with the bridge they had driven over it hundreds if not thousands of times mr flynn testified that his his speed was only twenty five miles an hour and there's also the statute which requires you to reduce speed when you come over the crest of a hill or on the approach of the crest of the hill until you can see that your way is clear so i don't believe that the the speed limit if there had been a twenty mile an hour speed limit would have stopped x also the as counsel said there are narrow exceptions to the rules as far as the intended and permitted users distance to stop because of the insufficient sight line he collided with the rear of her vehicle that shows that once again they're talking about the insufficient si that the speed limits or should have been lower there was an obstructed sightline it was a difficult line goes to the design defect which is beyond the ten year statute of limitations granted they defending against stale claims in their brief plaintiffs cite cases regarding power supply that have to maintain the power supply for gas electricity utilities every day and when something they had a fitting that was effective they said that doesn't mean that it's not included in the construction staff there were calls because that is different here we had a clear design of a bridge we had a construction of a design defect argument they should have tried to amend their complaint in the four years before a motion for summary judgment was granted because this was all after that and the case law on time in inadequate sight distance but this is stopping distance which is explained in our statement facts in the separate section relates to speak i mean if you were travelling at one mile an hour it might be safe come over this hill at thirty miles an hour