accumulation of block the sidewalk from plaintiff's apartment building to an adjacent building containing the onsite laundry facility this court should reverse the trial court's order for three reasons first the condition at issue and a natural accumulation does not open an obvious as a matter of law to do it even if this on national accumulation was open in obvious there's a genuine issue material fact as to whether defendants owed to duty of care under the deliberate encounter exception and three the trial court failed to analyze all four factors under the traditional duty analysis the question in this case course is whether the defendant voted duty of care to them which is a question of law to determine ask whether the plaintiff in the defendant stood in such a relationship to one another that the law imposes upon the defendant an obligation of reasonable conduct for the benefit of the plaintiff and determining whether this duty exists the court looks at open obvious and whether an exception applies and the two and the last two factors are the public policy considerations so today i want to focus as to the second and the third issues so whether a genuine issue material fact remains louder the issues that i want to focus on today are the deliberating counter exception and the factors under the traditional duty analysis so even if this court finds the i'm naturally humilation was open and obvious as a matter of law the deliberate there is still a genuine issue material fact as to whether the deliberate encounter exception applies to the trial court erred and finding that the delivered encounter exception did not apply because the trial court's view this condition based upon the reasonableness of the plaintiffs and not the landowner even though the language of the restatement plainly requires otherwise and two there is more than sufficient evidence in this record to raise a genuine issue material fact as to the  applies to situations where you can show that it was i think they're the same i'm very sorry there i think i think of the same you have to show that it was foreseeable on the part of the landowner that adds the pla economic policy oh you agree or disagree i disagree i disagree because the illinois supreme court in that slammy vs eaton case provides guidance on that context because they said in that case we are not saying that the deliberating can or exception would only apply to situations such as fever where it was an employment situation and i think this is back case because you have to look at if they didn't speak well i mean there was no economic compulsion what they said what and slammy of it was the plaintiff was jumping on a trampoline and they said well obviously there's no economic compulsion in that case but we're not saying  reason to expect the body will proceed to encounter any known or obvious danger because for a reasonable man in his position the advantages of doing so outweigh the apparent r was the shortest most direct other than because you know other than his testimony there's no like you know this is this was of so many feet to this entrance and i would take this money around to the other entrance and the choices are turn right now to laundry facility way turn left to go down to the building by line facility when he reaches turns left to go down that route then he had come to another fork in the road if you know where you can go bri  way that accurate or not that's not how i remember his testimony and i would say also you know we're talking a lot about the alternative past and i again i don't think that that is consistent with the because if you're talking about alternative paths and you're looking at this from the position of the plaintive when the restatement requires you to look at this in terms of going to the property owner what was foreseeable to the property owner and of course they would have  property owner would have foreseen that you're going to have both residents and visitors that are using this very sidewalk and i think that's the issue that is a problem in terms of this alternative route argument  you also have the supreme court and lefever who talks about you know alternative route is not the way to look at the deliberate encounter exception and in fact they rejected the defendant's argument in that case where they argued that unless there were no reasonable alternatives and the workers continued employment was at risk then he was the deliberating counter exception would not apply and in that case also the case of morsi versus arlington park race resource which is the first district case from two thousand and ten that's another case where they argued that there was an alternative route and with alternative route the defendants had tried to argue that the deliberating counter exception would not apply in that case the first district again relying upon lefever found that you know this argument as to alternative  routes is is is not determinative as to whether the deliberate encounter exception applies i and i would say in our case there's you know obviously there's evidence in the records the defendants could have anticipated that plaintiff would deliberately encounter the condition which covered the sidewalk in front of buildings and ordering the parking lot and both are was an east london and changing seasons acknowledge the importance of keeping the sidewalks clear so therefore it would be you know our position that obviously a defendant could have anticipated the plaintiff would deliberately encounter the condition which covered the sidewalk in our case now as to the issue of whether or at the trial court level the trial court failed to consider all four factors under traditional duty analysis so again the first two factors relate to whether the conditions open obvious and exception does apply and therefore these the first two factors under the deliberate are under the traditional duty analysis would weigh in favor of by your duty as to the last two factors under the traditional duty analysis these are the public policy considerations of the efficient placement of the burden the supreme court said that the weight to be accorded to the four factors loadings upon the circumstances of any given case  and we would argue this is the case and illinois i don't think it's just tooted beds if there is an unnatural accumulation there is liability there in this case we the negligence  against changing seasons and their negligence removal of the drive lanes at that eastland they created this unnatural accumulation i don't think you can dispute that they created a national cumulation and then you also have said eastland who had employees on the property hours after this condition was created at this unnatural accumulation they encountered the unnaturally humiliation  were unable to take care of it themselves but instead of you know calling the property owner or taking any measures to remedy the situation that they knew was a problem because it's on the sidewalk they know that they have to clear the sidewalk because that's what he testified that the next morning so monday morning he came in to report on national accumulation blocking the sidewalk to the property manager and she testified the property manager she testified that she contacted changing seasons to come out for a movie on natural accumulation from the sidewalk and we would say again we would argue that in this case you know the magnitude of part of the burden of guarding ordinary care in accomplishing that task the employees of our recent eastland music condition was there was unable to remedy it well they should have had a policy in place as to what to do if this happened on a weekend they knew it was a problem but they had no mechanism in place to contact the property owner on a weekend in this case they testified that they did not have a maintenance supervisor at the time so no one overseeing the operations to ensure everything was done correctly and instead of taking that next step to contact their property owner on your property manager i'm sorry i had piled snow on the steps i believe it was the steps of rounds of the apartment building and the property manager called changing season and explained to them that they need to have somebody come out and remedy that situation and as i recall that property manager said that you know the owner of changing season was very apologetic and was saying that you know he just has very young maintenance workers and that he would take  should they should have piled it in a location other than the sidewalk you are you also have the testimony of the owner of changing seasons and who says that he could have piled the snow and the empty parking space in that parking option other than placing it on the sidewalk where they know people will be walking there has to be a like that in this case they said they were initially the designated area was along the fence line and i  pedestrian traffic on the in the parking lot which is not only permitted but customary as demonstrated by eugene forms testimony so what happened on the day of the accident well we know that it happened in broad daylight at two pm he was carrying a large basket of laundry that did not obstructed view and we know that because he testified that it didn't and by plane of someone admissions he saw it while he saw the pile of snow as he was approaching it he acknowledged and these are his words that ice forms under falling snow an accumulation of snow would be slippery and it could result in a slip and fall he had the opportunity to take a different route is is is the best way to characterize the time that he had to contemplate that pathway he had time to take a different route ok he hadn't yet reached the case that would demonstrate a risk or a minor inconvenience of taking a different route and i'm glad you mention that during the plaintiff's argument because it is true they would have a much stronger argument if a something that we are advancing at all in fact x existence of alternative paths indeed does not negate legal duty but the deliberate encounter exception imposes a duty were a landowner can reasonably expect encounter an open and obvious condition so when is that the case and reason your honour's discussed this earlier with respect to economic compulsion but also it's important to look of her decision and the morsi decision both of those plaintiffs were acting under an economic compulsion they were both employees and the courts have even expanded the act but deliberate encounter exception to include any compulsion was plaintiff compelled seek that out did the risks and the benefits of taking that route and cumbered by the pile of snow outweigh the apparent risks that he testified to but he explained the great deal of detail at his deposition no i just want to make clear a reasonable whether the landowners reasonable expectation that the plaintiff pulled encounter a hazardous condition when the landowner knows that there are alternative routes on encumbered by large open and obvious one of them is blocked by the mound of snow that he slipped and fell on the other one is clear if you have this alternative path that is clearly no more cumbersome or time consuming to pay there the this isn't a situation where plaintiff was distracted there was a lapse in time during which plaintiff forgot about the pile of snow and it's important to talk about this because these are the two exceptions  courts have used to analyze the first two factors of the fourth factor duty analysis reasonable likelihood and foreseeability these exceptions have never been played they've never been argued no facts have been a deuce to support either but what of evidence a deuced in this case demonstrates that they question does not apply so if plaintiff is presumed in the eyes of the law to exercise to be able to exercise reasonable ordinary care and possess a student judgment avoid risks he is no exception to that expectation under the law and the court need not look further than plaintiff's own words to understand that he was aware of the risk he knew what was coming he even testif just much like a large pile of snow so the deliberate encounter imposes only a duty where a landowner can reasonably expect that a plaintiff will encounter a known or obvious risk so we already know that he wasn't acting out of a fear born out of an economic loss or so there's no economic compulsion there's no compulsion period he was not compelled the advantages of encountering the pile of snow did not outweigh the risks that he morrisey he testified that time was of the essence you had to complete his job in a finite amount of time and you only had fifteen minutes to do so so your limited amount of time to do so so we can even can consider those cases plaintiff was not doing his job he was doing his laundry just like in hastings the same considerations were contemplated plaintiff knew of the peril she voluntarily encountered the hazard despite knowing of the hazards it presented and that's what she testified to she in fact her alternative route led to a locked door but in that case the court did not consider a locked door sufficient to present as an obstacle that was not a real obstacle is it your position that these cases sta proposition that the deliberate counter section is available only to those under economic you know my position is that it can even be expanded to a compulsion so if for example an economic compulsion or what or when the risks when the benefits of encountering the hazard outweigh the risks of encountering the hazard and no risk no obstacle is that not even a slight inconvenience mentioned in plain no plaintiff did not present any testimony that it that the benefits outweigh the risk in fact he was more details when he explained the risks and the undisputed territory that plaintiff made  decision to proceed while knowing of and understanding the obvious risks which by his own admission would result in a slip and fall injury again plaintiff's words the trial court probably granted so those or a compulsion to to pursue the benefits of encountering the pile of snow as compared to the risks that he explains this is a question of law not a question of fact and the  occasionally and i represent changing seasons on the landscape this is a straight forward slip and fall on snow and ice where the facts about the nature of the condition that caused play into far undisputed the tra doctrine goes toward the first two factors in the analysis the likelihood of injury and the first see a built reasonable for c ability of injury what the supreme court told us in book larry's versus chicago park district is that where the condition is open an obvious the first two factors in the test weigh heavily against  the deliberate encounter exception my understanding based on the court's reasoning in ward is that the deliberate encounter exception then goes toward the second of the two factors the reasonable for see ability of injury such that where a defendant can anticipate that there will be some compulsion on the plane if to go ahead and deliberately encounter it in that circumstance there might be some reasonable for see ability of injury so i think that's where that how the how the delivering countered section of the open an obvious danger rule relate to the four factor duty  analysis demonstrates the change in seasons of no duty to protect plaintiff from the open obvious risk of attempting to traverse the snow pile that changing seasons allegedly created the first two factors likelihood of injury and reasonable for  ability of injury are slight because the undisputed testimony concerning the physical description of the snow pile indicates that the condition and its wrists were open were apparent too and would have been recognized by a reasonable person in the position of a visitor exercising ordinary perception intelligence and judgment which is the standard for good turning by the risk is open an obvious the third factor the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury also weighs against imposing duty on changing seasons in this case as plaintiff acknowledges he slipped and fell as he was attempting to walk through a cut out in the snow man that appeared to him to have been created by prior foot traffic so even if plaintiff were able to establish the changing seasons an initially created this amount of snow and place it on the sidewalk it would impose a burden of considerable magnitude on changing the seasons to require it to monitor the snow piled on someone else's property in order to attempt to prevent other people from subsequently modifying it or altering it to create this cut out and sloped icy surface on which kind of claims to have slipped the evidence in this case is that this was a record snowfall season that all of the designated areas for plowed snow at the arbors were full by the end of december two thousand and thirteen which would have been two to three weeks prior claims and injury and the changing seasons had to put any freshly plowed snow anywhere they could grassy areas and this was and the sidewalk was adjacent to a grassy area so when you say you know when you're talking about the magnitude of the bird guarding against him it's it's not that he either have snow in the parking lot or snow on the sidewalk i mean you could put snow on the grass you know but that's true and this planning is occurring at two forty five to five thirty in the morning when it's dark and there you know there's some suggestion in the testimony that attempt was made to put it onto the grassy area and that perhaps it spilled over into the adjacent sidewalk but be clearing of the sidewalks themselves were outside of the scope of changing work as well as heiling the snow off site so you know plaintiff's assertion that it was negligent to allow cloud snow to cover any part of a sidewalk is is just not supported by the evidence whereas it would be a minor inconvenience pedestrian such as plaintiff to simply walk around a snow pile of boxes path instead of trying to climb over it or through it or turn around and take one of any of the other alternate routes that were available the consequences of pile or erecting barricades or warning signs in barber versus g j partners which is a case that kind of cited this part recognize the public benefits of shoveling and plowing snow covered parking lots in this part of the country during the winter and recognize that the task rarely can be performed perfectly when you pound snow from one spot to another by definition you're creating a natural and unnatural accumulation somewhere if the act of creating an unnatural accumulation alternate routes in those two cases conclusively did establish that the plaintiff could have avoided the risk entirely i see  hastings was the case where the woman walked down the icy snow covered backstairs of her mother in law's home when she could have simply walked out the front door there was no economic compulsion at all in the case she did it for her own convenience and what the courts are telling us there is that can be your own convenience is just not enough there has to be something truly compelling you to make bad bad choice to encounter the open and then be open in obvious risks and it's the same in  eastland has argued that just based upon their argument today it really seems as though what they're saying is once you find a condition as open and obvious like that's the end of the analysis and i don't think that's correct i think you have to consider again we argue that deliberate exception deliberate encounter exception would apply and you have to look at these public policy factors and again looking at the lawn illinois says that you are responsible for an unnaturally cumulation here it and this case changing season is the person that created this unnatural accumulation they cannot dispute that they chose this area of the sidewalk where they know people will be using it  to place this unnaturally cumulation there should be a duty for that house to arbors at eastland they had people on the property they knew that this unnaturally cumulation was blocking the sidewalk and it wasn't just some of your part of the sidewalk this was the place where people would enter not only you know entrances to building number ten but also to their cars parked in parking lot number number two so i think you have to look at these public policy factors and determine you know are you going to lead this open obvious argument outweigh the fact that we have you know they have a duty under illinois law to remedy unnaturally cumulation and again we would just argue and terms of changing seasons address the last two factors under the traditional duty analysis and we would argue the efficient a placement of this burden of avoiding the injury is on changing seasons all it took for them to do is actually check their work before they left that morning which apparently was not done in this particular case and terms of the consequences of imposing this duty it's also equally negligible again as no remove will contractor be liable for any entries that it creates or aggravates and unnatural accumulation and imposing a duty in this case would simply require changing seasons to perform its snow removal operations and a manner that doesn't you know  manager and the consequences the imposing that duty is not expanding or creating any additional duties under illinois law so for these reasons we would ask that the court reversed the trial court's finding and remand for further