as i said i suspect you already know the case involved in a motor vehicle accident on a road in  we think that there is a cause of action under the road worker safety act under those circumstances we believe that if you look at section one and section one of what is now the rover safety act they changed the name of section one sets a general standard for all traffic all construction worker bridges one way traffic felt you maintain is the real question and i'll never be answered to the question as to sara lee but the question is if you're if you're doing the resurfacing work and you've got both lanes done so you can when i think that's what the question comes down to in terms of looking at the statute in terms of what the statute requires so that stated all the facts in our complaint are a middle not only portion only objection they made to the complaint was there is no cause of action even with everything you cite and it wasn't based on whether the but i don't it was on going ok well protected that's that's the issue in my mind because the defect here was when the tire stepped up or slipped off the shoulder which had a ok we've all driven on and because gap ok so the question was you know what point is the road contractors are relieved of the obligation to have a flag or or the one way traffic or whatever well if there is a claim or a cause of action under just section one where is it that this act what's to be done specifically or is it just it ought to be safe and back and practicable but we can't figure out we're not going to pose the requirement that you have flagmen we're not going to impose this requirement that requirement we're just going to say in those bro overarching terms it has to be safe and practical that doesn't mean that doesn't seem to me to square with a with an overall plan what it square is a definition of safety act this is all just to look if it's a two way traffic the statute doesn't apply that's true as two sections two three and four has two section one if you compare it to the structural work  the first and foremost is again the supreme court of illinois every case that i saw with regard to that concept it was the supreme court the city and in some of them they said when this court the somebody said it applied to reconstruction b a way not to apply this statute the statement of this opinion that it's obvious that the statute only applies in this super dangerous case where there's a one way road on they in fact did and what they did if you can read again if you look at the decision i'm not i'm not sure what it does hold because they that they couldn't wait on the facts anyway so the decision i'm i'm not sure she's not exactly what it does me but i do know this they did not follow what amou to if you look at the pates case the holding regulation or court and there's nothing unusual about the common law has provided a remedy for years the question in this case is not whether or not played a federal money it's for the plaintiff had a remedy under the stat other than dobson all deal with specific provisions to three or four i agree that they all apply to those sections because those are the section because there were bridges or highways involved in those to one way traffic and the courts recognize that if the points of construction of the statute prevail then the act would be difficult to virtually any situation where there was road work being performed o say is not the situation where of exempt status misplaying if we have to prove that it was unsafe and in practice they have a pretty heavy burden of proof when you when you start talking about industry but then it goes on to say when that should be one way or closed all together it's like creating a cause of action for the situation where two way traffic is maintained but i think maintained in a way that is safe and practical is a policy the for most even handed predictable and consistent development of legal principles for stressful lines on cases and contributes to the integrity of the judicial process we have no less than six another say yes i have balance in english in black and white that there is nothing in the statute about two way traffic is a travesty section one slip all construction work upon bridges or highways they make the act doesn't apply doesn't two way traffic isn't covered staff it is covered in step those prior opinions and docs and are wrong we need to call a they have misled the court state have misled counsel misled litigants for twenty five years it isn't this that and what more do they need does under the statute we put in our group the provisions of the contract that obligate you to submit a safety plan a traffic control plan he has his obligation to make that determination  if it isn't he either goes to one lane or he goes to the county and ask them to close i think there's two different choices of course to different groups the court could say we're not going to follow datsun because we think that this supreme court authority a stronger or there's been no ruling on this particular point in this district court say sound reason and principle lead us to a