the child drowned in the illinois river and it's gone back and forth on this but it times and i'm sure when the when today but the allegation is that he died on the river water flooding the park district's property this arguing the same thing if the child died in a swale in the same location that had filled with reminders in either situation the participants had control over the property as they proved in years prior when the river case that finally drives home that when you have an open in obvious condition even if the distraction exception doesn't apply you still have to have a traditional duty analysis and that burden guarding against the injury and the consequences of playing placing that burden on the defendant i think if the n y c each of these factors in this case it's clear that a human can be alleged more litany of cases that it says are similar and controlling they are not the facts in this case this case deserves an analysis of its own facts and when we talk about a reasonable  factor which is in for the expense of inconvenience of remedying the defective structure was left out and then just one on the say or dangerous condition was slight when compared with the risk children if you look at the forsee ability of that the harm in this case and you consider that children who is not of an age allowed to be at large a three year old who clearly qualifies for that quite clearly a ten year old is an age old enough to be allowed large where a three year old is not in our case we have a three year old and i think in response you're going to see or hear in the  park district argue over and over again well in the end being the case mustafa is they all move differently well first again it's not the circumstances of this case and secondly i would say they got it wrong and that gets a supressed which is one of the additional cases that the artist best submit where they somehow come up with this rule that the lack of adult or parental supervision is absolutely not for supreme court has never said that and if that were the case it would have discreetly conference which was reaffirmed over and over again if you have a child it's too young to be allowed at large then there's nothing for three year old can get away from any adult in even that the appear exercising the most reasonable care for that young child children can slip simply slip away from their parents and so it is  stage my client is allowed to reason whatever it is that is for the very reason to protect children in this playground they certainly are trying to protect the adults who should know better you know maybe toes it wasn't exactly the same but it was enough to give them notice that the water is in traction the children in on it moves up on to their property only one hundred fifty feet away from this playground and it's designed such that an open area for interesting press is blocked is blocked by the climbing wall then they ought to do something about it and in this year they didn't and i think they should be allowed to move on she discovery to find out why so then briefly just touching on the other arguments that might be in the record in in they'll argue that the sustain it and you don't do anything that shows an utter disregard it least to the point of getting it to the jury they've tried to make some sort of inaction isn't sufficient in the supreme court has just determination of policy in exercising discretion i think that marie case from the supreme court quite clearly says that if there's a more specific community that does apply the exception in our case the recreational property immunity has a willful one exception that one applies even if it doesn't i think that the pleadings don't want the court to dismiss it based on that i think the court should reverse the trial court's ruling on the them in the statute and reverse it then remand it back for further proceedings if there are any questions well he answered now that is wrong on the roof of the partition building which is the argument the trial or try to avoid three one tend not to drown in flood water or somewhere else the river was flooded there is no dispute that is the allegation but the allegations of the complaint and the i don't believe that the open obvious risk will should be applied to children of tender years that's nice six other members of the screen her her normal human and rejected it isolated additionally obvious there is simply no duty on the landowner because the whole idea is you cannot anticipate foresee that someone will fail to avoid a blatantly obvious danger now the second argument i had raised previously been dealt with by the supreme court and the appellate court and the legislature there is no contrary disputing light of authority this is straightforward we've explained that from day one i've also raised an addition property that was flooded by the river water again it's a dangerous condition on their watch or on their property caused by the water if it was rainwater that flooded the swale it would be the same issue they start with an example illustration six a ten year old is clearly open up appreciate the danger but if three year old is not so there's no real analysis saying what you look after that there's got to  honest i don't even want to respond to the motion for sanctions because if you continue to look at occasions say there's one literal law the supreme court is clearly saying look at each case individually if you don