pavement that was to be late was to be laid at two inches including the binder co and then subsequently the shoulders are to be done from the edge of the pavement tapered out to zero and the idea of speed somewhere in the neighborhood  village she was walking along the road it was dark at the time a car was coming from the other direction and she stepped off of the road onto the shoulder not realizing that the drop was leave october eleventh to seven days after my client's fall the reason i know that this is the trial court felt that this was a classic quote unquote hunt doctrine case and  which is merely contracted to follow if a contractor carefully carries out the specifications provided him he's justified your relying upon the head was he of the specifications unless they are so obviously dangerous that no com contractor would follow them and in this particular case there is no dispute i made no dispute i'd be half of my client with regards to whether or not the plants were safe as they were as they defended and my contention is is that when you couple that live which is five and a half or six inches with the fact that there is a whole range as related to the total amount of tonnage for that which their growth that construction projects have been done leading backlash in my in my pain in what was negligence on the part of the construction company they left it for at least a week and as resolving created dangerous situations so that somebody who would be walking along the roadway would step off and i kind of became was dark in which she looked i didn't look like there was the death of dropoff that there was and that's oh i don't believe so your honor i would venture to guess that the road construction areas that you went to also had some sort of signage in me which allowed you to garner that they were in fact construction areas this did not have that don't don't know the age it was within a couple blocks of where the it's in their current and might have been on the same block that she lived just on a different street she knew she knew it was going on but she had no idea that the drop off was what it was that she she had not walked on that roadway after they had laid the asphalt for some time because at least she said it was tacky and she didn't want to get any asphalt or material most she didn't want to get all over her dogs paws n of which i presume that you know once you bring the dog in the house i have a lab so i know that goes all too well but nonetheless she didn't want to hear she had walked in that area she hadn't been in that area so she led an asshole take on and i presume and i guess i'm just making an assumption that by living in the living in the village she was generally aware of the road project as it related but as i said they lay this as fall and then are there's certainly some comparative negligence issues in this case your honor and i think that gets to you know down the road and if it's mentioned in the brief and i don't know that i will argue extensively but with regards to the open an obvious danger which is exactly what you honour's talking about and then my client talking about the distraction she she'll face one being dark and number two there's a not there's a vehicle coming from the other direction which causes her to step off so i mean i believe that there are comparative issues in this case but i believe that the defendant should be that there are there are sufficient facts for a jury to determine whether or not there's liability in the case and that there is a  duty and their course of likes is the less it's fair they have finished the p d operations they left no signage behind whatsoever and then there's a run over around the amount of asphalt now the end of the engineer or the representative of the engineers might just think that when they let it sit for a week or ten days whatever it was a minimum of a week in that condition they've created a construction site with unknown with unknown to them days or because they la asphalt and then they leave this pitfall which she comes across and she's walking on the roadway the other point that i wanted to to address is the permitted intended attendance for cars not necessarily for pedestrians and the first area that i think we can make a car got an exception in this matter is after the sidewalk in this matter was behind her on the other side of the road my recollection is that it was in bad condition and for a period there was no sidewalk she was walking in the year that she felt was most safe for her at that time and the other distinguish have this is it you know this isn't a road away so much as a construction site at this time it's you know cars were allowed to utilize it as well but they were certainly well aware from the time that they spent inside a car that people utilize that roadway all the time and i thought that came out of mr parishes deposition that they saw people walking in that area so they based their certainly think that it would be conceivable that they would they would think not to leave the ledge that they did leave the other point of contention that i had was with regards to the i doubt standards the department transfers occasions standards have to be followed in this matter and that was due to the fact that this was a motor fuel tax case or more fuel tax and job so they have to follow the i have standards and when you look at the standards the seventy one point seven and it's a it's a long standard but it indicates the necessity for mayor hayes in this sort of situation i don't know that it requires a shoulder dropoff there should have been a sawhorse or something that would indicate to her that there is a potential danger and that's our position here inches that's quite a drop off for some cars i would presume that could cause some damage scheme i'm going to start with i just responded to the plaintiff's arguments and it seems to say he seems to be putting forth that deconstruction had a duty to somehow grade on our shoulder before she fell and also to put some type of morning in science i'll wait for the i diot standards after i dressed first to the record is clear in the contract it's clear that deconstruction did not have a duty out shoulder at any specific time the contract doesn't provide for that and the testimony is it is not provided in the contract there's no issue and we cite to the most recent illinois supreme court decision in town center that says we're not going to read in requirements and create duties into contracts that don't exist this we're going to be using the written then you must complete a shoulder within five days of lane the ho street she is a pedestrian and would like to address she didn't know it was under construction she saw all the fresh oil signs when the hot asphalt mix was laid out on the site so that in the record in our breeze  she lives two houses east of hasek's street which was under can see where the road was under construction so she was two houses east there are sidewalks on either side which she testif that there was a sidewalk alongside where she was walking on the street she admitted that it wasn't behind her as i thought i heard that inside and she was aware that there was a drop off she just didn't know how big of a drop off but then she was walking on it at night when the dog gets traffic and that's just not a situation for a reasonably foreseeable situation that this person that in the the signage requirements under the i diot standards i would like to address that as well and i just want to clarify something the plaintiff identified in his reply brief that the trial court relied on the wrong construction more four miles or more so that section doesn't apply in this situation there is no issue in fact that this construction for hasek's street was one thousand two hundred fifty feet  so that section doesn't apply also the engineer was in control of all signage and the engineer signed off as deconstruction being in compliance with the whole contract  finally if there could be some conceivable way that deconstruction was required to follow the signage it would it provides for barricades every one hundred feet if it's more than earth it's less than forty five miles per hour they're very tazer vertical panels every two hundred feet of it's more than forty five miles per hour there the only way that deconstruction could go the place to put duty under the situation is whether she would  designed for the protection of this rule so they don't go off the road again as i've already said the person walking on the street at night and under construction against traffic where sidewalk exist again because she knew she admitted she knew she just didn't know how big of a drop off that's not barricades or drug costs signs are not going to we're not going to stop her conduct she didn't walk on the street because she tara was still wets not that it was a dangerous situation and she also did not say i want to clarify that she didn't go in that area again when you where you really understand where she lives it's the intersection of union and haas that she lives here it's a dead end so she was aware of the road construction she just didn't walk on the street not that she didn't walk in the area and the only other thing i didn't want to dress was the overage this is a classic kind situation because there is no issue of fact that deconstruction comply with all of the plans and specifications of the contract they laid the two inches of asphalt on a photograph showing one in a a five and a half inches of dropoff doesn't negate or contradict the clear evidence that two inches were laid it was measured three different ways  in addition this was placed over preexisting row and before the two inches was placed one of the contract required him to clear in the aggregate and get rid of all the deep dirt leaves an aggregate off the edge of the road which would of course lead to a drop off in the photograph show that so that doesn't create an issue of fact regarding the overreach nineteen times on the estimated i think five hundred twenty one ton project the testimony was clear it never comes it exactly as estimated i think there's a brady identified in the in the literature in the contracts that oh their driveways to allow for larger driveways carefully did so whether or not asphalt is laid and then the shoulder is in place for up to a week to ten days later i think there's certainly questions as to whether or not that is careful first with regards to the photograph the think part of the explanation was given with regards to the crowning of the roadways in the very end there was no indication while there was talk of a measurement on the back of the paving machine which checks it as well as you approach where you believe it was go as well as mr farrell's c no indication as to where these checks are got is that one inch in the middle of the road with a religious higher and three inches out further and that's why i think there's a why there's a question of fact in the photo looks like it's new asphalt and it's i mean it looks like it's five and a half or six inches that night and i think that when you look at that you conjunction with the overage there's there's questions that need to be resolved could it could it be the situation with the kind of talk about that this is always the case in that shoulders or place created the hazard council talked briefly about causation issues where there was no indication because the plaintiff knew of the construction in the area well yes she knew the area but she said she hadn't been on hosack street and that area she stayed away from it because of the the fresh blackout fresh oil as i indicated earlier council to do as well  so she wasn't in that area so we're barricades have provided her warning which is part of our allegations against them absolutely come also indicated i believe that the f b i guys the interns were part of the contract i think it's very clear that  science so we have fingers being pointed both directions the sidewalk that was there was on the other side of the road and stopped it wasn't can take us she was walking along the roadway in a construction site with a hazard that was created by that act gap was partially contributing to the way the road laid as well as to the way that they laid the asphalt certainly conceivable but the bottom line is that was at their profit that was their construction site and they left that ha side of the street and not the rest and they've seen people walking on the streets in that area i think it's certainly conceivable to them that pedestrians are going to use that area and the hazard was left that way now the hazard turns out to be a hazard for a good afternoon because my client was walking her dog on that