and our final case this morning is roe versus starbucks case number sixteen forty thirty three fell onto that finger and cut off the finger at the store there is much discussion and much writing about what  originally manufactured in the late eight hundred s weighed about thirty pounds and was placed in this store for us that purposes the stand i'm that's and with any type of upon the stand chair or are swinging from the ropes as the other child was between the stanchions no in in this case over chicago area in fact the jurors in this case if and when this case is tried will walk over to the pot bellies on dearborn street and see this exact type of stanchions the wrought iron stanchions which are actually affixed bolted to the floor and that's the way the designer intended it to be he did he design these at properly stores all throughout the region i think he said there was about three hundred different stores that he has put these types of stanchions into and  every occasion he bowled some to the floor and the reason is because if you don't bolt them to the floor these are big heavy wrought iron things that can fall and injure people and so when when he put this into the starbucks store he told the folks at starbucks you have to bolt these to the floor if you don't they pose a very sick very severe safety risk to people and he recommended it to him and starbucks said we appreciate their recommendation but this is a very unique store this is  on and this story is going to be kind of a new and unique story that has a very cool floor and we don't want to start putting holes in the floor and then have to later on move those holes that won't look so so good for our store so we want to different idea and so what happened then was the stanch and was affixed to sort of a concrete bucket if you will at the bottom with mr punky the designer and installer saying to starbucks once you figure out exactly how people are going to go through your store how they're how the line is going to form how they're going to move through because that's your concern that's why you won't recommend that's why you will follow my recommendation once you figure that out you really need to bolt them to the floor and again it's a safety concern and it's not something that a parent would it would expect i  parent would expect this that those would be bolted into the floor just like the thousands of other extensions that i've seen the target stores throughout throughout the region and that is exactly what the designer you know recommended the question then is you know did starbucks have a duty to this young boy i think everyone agrees that under any basis of illinois law there was a duty here whether it's the duty of warden burger king which is sort of the foreseeability in analysis whether it's role where if you create a danger you have a duty to warn against it or remove that danger whether it's con where there's sort of a heightened duty when you know there's a dangerous condition and children may frequent the area and so there certainly was a duty and the question below which is the question i believe that your honor is addressing is whether that duty is abrogated whether it's whether whether starbucks is absolved of their of their duty because they would think that parents would avoid it and in order for a duty to be absolved or abrogated it must be an obvious danger and we go back to the restatement of torts there are there are three generally recognized obvious dangers fire water and a fall from height restatement whether the parents were aware of the condition and they clearly weren't because they sighed and that is enough to abrogate the duty as i understand online law so you're exactly right whether it's sort of obvious sort with the ropes you know that are meant to separate people in a line at the time that is or any other fast food place because they may fall and injure their elbow on their way down not because it will topple over and dramatic their finger and i think that's very don't have to anticipate the sipek an injury all you have to do is anticipate that this could be dangerous to the child as i understand the on eye doctor we don't have this in wisconsin so this was new to me but you know apparently this is duty cut off and it and it's it's it's actually a very specific in fact specific inquiry and that the two cases that we rely upon the harris first wal mart store where the young boy was running through the store and ran into a post because he didn't he didn't realize and the parents didn't realize that there was a a metal post behind the clothing that he ran through obviously in the store the parent would have known its dangerous nature was not and the only way i can it analogize it is i see the carpet in this room and i know that i know that there is carpet here and i know that if my kids run through this room they might trip and fall on the carpet but if there into that hole and break their ankle that's this case and that's the that's the that's the perry case where i know that at a restaurant that serves dim sum brunch there might be hot tea and i know there's a lazy susan and i see the lazy susan but i don't know that the that the person at the restaurant has put that hottie on to the lazy susan and i don't know that the three year old that's sitting at the table is going to that you know given the obvious nature of the danger it really it doesn't matter whether mr or mrs rowe were subjectively aware of that  danger and and nor does it matter that starbucks might have been on notice because of the creator's recommendations and they could all respectfully i disagree and i believe that's the classic jury question i think i think judge mccuskey in paris had it exactly right when faced with this question of whether it's so inherently either obvious or whether  reasonable person would be aware of its danger you put that to the jury and you don't you let the jury decide whether or not this is a dangerous condition that a reasonable person would have been aware of and our please the court good afternoon my name is sandy miller and we have a starbucks there are three basic arguments and i think that your honor so talk to the about them in counsel's presentation but there are three basic arguments that we made at the summ judgment stage and are now making in response to this appeal the first which has been talked about already is that starbucks is absolved of any duty to marcus rowe since he was under the supervision of his parents at the time of the incident the second is that there's no duty to protect because this particular event wasn't reasonably foreseeable and the third is that the claim regarding act of negligence must be ignored moving out to the first arguments the was very clear in illinois that the responsibility for the safety of the child lies primarily with the parents in granting summary judgment the district court correctly applied a wind of the very unambiguous cases those cases hold that the law absolves business owners of liability for an injury to a child accompanied by a parent if the dangerous known or should be obvious to the parent in this case is cracked into nuisance in so far as children are concerned i'm sorry your  it is but is this an attractive nuisance in so far as little children are concerned it's not an element of any of these cases judge it wasn't talked about in many of these  cases i suppose arguably as they talk about in some of the cases that it is common sense for instance that a child might be drawn to a floor buffer machine at a wal mart it's common sense that a child might be attracted to a swimming pool which is what the one of the cases is about but the attractive nuisance doctrine is not discussed in these cases specifically in this case there's no dispute that marcus rowe was accompanied and should have been more closely supervised by his parents the argument as i understand it is that starbuck's duty can only be aggravate eg abrogated if the parents were specifically aware of the dangerous condition that's an argument that ignores the case law that is an argument that was rejected by the court harland that was an argument that was rejected by the court in blackford in harlem the mother specifically testified that quote she did not perceive anything dangerous about the stand which caused the injury the same argument in blackford when the pla mother claimed to quote not have any reason to know that it could be dangerous when referring to a buffer machine in both of those cases that was the same argument being advanced by the plaintiff that's being advanced here in both of those cases summary judgment was granted significantly the harlan court i just talked about this went on to explain that it is a matter of common sense that a child would be hurt or could be hurt by displacing and blackford explained it's a matter of common sense that a young boy might be attracted to and become injured by a buffer machine the case here is even more compelling that it is a matter of common sense that if you let your kids climb up onto a very heavy stanch and and let your other son swing on the rope in a court crowded store at oakwood rush in chicago that an injury might occur this is precisely the reason the judge is able correctly pointed out that quote this abrogation can take place even if the parent does not appreciate the danger of the particular condition prior to the injury the second argument that we make also would form the basis for the entry of summary judgment separately is that the incident was reasonably foreseeable as the all clear case instructs to establish reasonable foreseeability play to smoke show that the occurrence was quote objectively reasonable to expect and quote not that it's just a possibility it's been said that hindsight makes every occurrence foreseeable in anything is foreseeable after it happens here there is no evidence even suggesting that starbucks should have anticipated that a young boy would be permitted to climb on a stanch and at the very moment that his brother was permitted to swing from the it only had this type of incident never happened before there's no proof the children had ever even played on the stanchions this event was not objective lee reasonable to expect in accordingly was not supreme court states and i quote the true basis of liability is the foreseeability of harm to the child in quote so foreseeability is a factor in the duty element well i am aware of that i ask the question in terms of first the ability is it is that the parental responsibility a lemonades the for see a billet well meant or does it go to something else in the duty the question there sort of to separate issues your honor  should line of cases is perhaps a little bit different than the foreseeability line of cases there are two separate arguments either of which would have supported the entry of summary judgment well we have to analyze them separately yes yes if everyone i guess is conceding that every step in the three in the duty equation is satisfied here and what we're talking about is the question of abrogation no i'm not i'm saying that there was no duty talked about by mr gibbs but there is a claim that because there is an allegation of active negligence that this ever again doctor in illinois should be treated differently as the district court noted in is still true today there is manager had been injured by this exact same stanch and when she's tried to step over a local she was carrying some things accidentally touched the rope and the statue came down on her leg and caused her injury she had by starbucks of that she problem that this is going to be a safety issue for patrons obviously it was reasonably foreseeable and the final thing i will mention is that the policy behind this law is that is that stores do not have to protect against things that they presume that the parent will keep their child away from and the idea is i will keep my child away from a pond however there is a case pastor versus hanover park where a seven year old drowns because there's a thin layer of ice and it's covered by snow and i as the parent can't comprehend that that is a pond and that's pond is dangerous i think it's an open field and therefore there's liability in a case like that where there