regarding whether the defendants had reason to suspect that amanda hoping for good about the existence of the mud on the stairs after the hour she spent inside eating doing homework watching television and sleeping and therefore whether the defen forgot about while the theory that is that there are several exceptions under the stretched out specifically a distraction they need cause you to not obvious is accepted the succession is applied by the supreme court of illinois and retro versus the city of springfield and that case the student is working as a high school manager of a football team the manager is as to retrieve a home for another player he goes inside retrieve the helmet and on his way back to the field he falls into a hole that is very open and obvious he even goes so far as to admit it earlier that day he'd see  this case he had seen the condition because his injury the poor power determined there was reasonably forseeable the defendant would fail to avoid a risk posed by a hole by the hole by becoming momentarily forgetful or distracted and the the concept of open obvious does not apply if the owner has reason to expect the invitees attention is distracted or that he has become forgetful or he otherwise will fail to protect yourself against the danger seizes overcomes and says that since down in orders ice cream or any ice cream they become forgetful of the six instead they turn around after eating the ice cream for if it can be reasonably becomes forgetful is otherwise undistracted when she turns around having forgotten about the stuff and falls would you agree that there most most many of the distraction cases distractions that really occurring are ongoing at the time that the injury or curbs the distraction itself is somehow present at the scene of the fall or injury i would agree with your honor i think that the focus so in the for the football manager yours you'd manage case if he or she happened to be walking across that field not on an errand but otherwise for mil you would feel and otherwise i think that the original nice weather would be a distraction and sent through all i think that the result under the nice pleather would boil down to the safe thing to this case boils down to and that is whether or not the nice weather because reason for the defendant to expect that the student will forget about the polls now if there is a cure i think maybe you're suggesting that you would not be surprised if we jury found against your client but at the same time if think there is if a question of fact is that what you're asserting regarding the what a reasonable person would find to be a distraction after having spent and that all day in the house would be reasonable for them to forget what they previously knew if i can answer your question two parts i think that a jury i think there's a substantial likelihood of a jury finding paper but by the way you believe he could be shocked if they found the other way it's like i was all my clients i guess that there's always a possibility of zero so yes right i believe that there is a good chance that the jury will find the other way and if there is a genuine issue material back then to determine regarding the issue the real issue in this case boils down to what was the duty of the fens the duty in this case was for the defense to reasonably anticipate the course of the day whether or not she heard the other warnings the father and son mr scenario talking about them on the steps would certainly be relevant factors for the jury to hear when they were determining whether or not the whether or not the defendant should have reasonably anticipated that she would still be injured despite the open obviousness of the condition however it must be determined by a trier of fact there's employ evidence on both sides that he may have gone through the course of her day become distracted there is ample evidence supporting that the defendants should expect it so the issue comes  that oft times i fall asleep and i forget about things that i have learned earlier in that i think that the sleep is a particularly strong factor to cause somebody to forget something that they previously learned this is a home that belonged to her parents she was there frequently she would go there and do the same activities that she did today and the same circumstances human nature is that when you're repetitive you all times he falls and i believe that the fact that she was in there doing the same things  mart wal mart which every customer when walking out of the store and that is carrying on large box a large appliance we simply glancing at their cash register receipt and what they bought was so small that it was in their pockets and that was all they were doing and they said something like well a lot of people look at their register receipt and point i think that yes the result would be the same for exactly the reason for your honor for a question a lot of people do their people do that therefore there is reason to anticipate that somebody will fail to recognize the danger when walking out of the store doing something that at least once perhaps more what is left is the determination of what is and that is if there is reason to expect a distraction or reason to expect forgetfulness or reason to expect them otherwise failing to protect themselves with posters on concrete pillars like the things we have on ladders the ladder warning says ladders can be unsafe you can fall off of them and the concrete pillar in front of kmart  walmart or post is going to have a sign on it that says be careful you might walk into this if you're not watching where you're going it all depends on the circumstances around injury if the concrete somebody would go out of their way in order to walk out this case involves at least that's where the car some people get more distracted in the parking why you ever tried to drive around somebody that's walking right now in the middle of the a lane or they're distracted by carrying your groceries they're distracted by one of their going to do with the car they're distracted by trying to get the keys out of their pocket and so they walk into a one of those shades that hold the cards or they walk into a light post the area wal mart or kmart the same as the only exit to a home by going down the steps is different than if the mother would have existed somewhere else in the yard can sit around on can and condition that's within an open parking lot actually say that like delhi lies at the property only owner has reason to expect that she will forget what she has discovered why should they have reason to suspect that she would have doesn't matter that she was inside for several hours not looking out the window she was inside for several hours watching her mother out the window do the work watching her mother straight her feet that would be a different scenario than if she was inside otherwise entertain was official enough to cause the defendants are no longer anticipate the risk of harm is a question for the jury this case unless an exception is created that if one simply for gets about what they saw what they were warned about then that opens the door wave the magic  some sort of linkage between a distraction forgetfulness because if anybody can say yeah i knew about this problem and i just forgot it you know it's sort of the the clumsy rule or whatever you want to call it gee i forgot  exception of if you are the hope center or something like that you know if there were some who are mentally disabled person was part of your normal heat or something or business and you get into this it's some special danger there but i think you're right i  knew there was not on the first step because i saw it but i am so surprised there is mud on another step that i open the slip i think that loans this is sort of a well it's not a good argument but beyond that there's no evidence to the important issue here is whether or not the distractions distracted from the or whether or not there was reason to expect the plaintiff would become forgetful of the condition the condition in the late spring in the lake michigan case the salami days the trampoline she was actively jumping on the trampoline how did she forget about the condition it is the trampoline which was actively jumping in this case the condition mother on the stairs she spent amid the hopes for an entire day inside while distracted by eating sleeping doing homework and watching television she forgot about the  it was the mud on the stairs or at least there was reason to expect that she would forget about the condition it was the mother on the stairs she throws there is reason to expect that she forgot about the condition of the mud on the stairs question for the jury becomes should the defendant have reasonably anticipated that she's on reasonable risk of harm caused by the condition notwithstanding it's over not because what about this creates argument that  it is that distraction or for good focus this isn't in order to prevent the idea that in the restatement they meant that it had to be a distraction or forgetfulness combined or an act of destruction causing it provided the illustration of the drugstore case and that case the poster comes in she sits down orders the ice cream while eating the ice cream the illustration points out she forgets about the condition she presumably finishes her bowl of ice cream stands up there's no other mention of a distraction she forgets well in the ice cream turns around otherwise without mention of any distraction holes there is no active distraction  in other words she ate the ice cream and fish the ice turned around and when she was read in front of the condition the condition that she had forgotten about the injury  action the jury takes into account whether or not the plaintiff was acting with reasonable care for her own safety and that is how the law deals with the absent mindedness it doesn't affect however what's important in this case which is the the defendant's oh that duty is reasonable care to all persons who are lawfully on the premises in order to comply with that duty when there is reason to expect that the person becomes forgetful of a dangerous condition that duty must