holes into the field of my client those holes existed at the time of the filing of the complaint those polls still exist there today in support of the substance of my particular complaint what is your  doesn't live in the area that we're talking about with the farmland his his house is actually there so it would probably not have been that long after they were actually installed he would have noticed that it was there right hemi poles or cited another case for ducks rubbish on the land of the plane of the invasion is hintin you'd by the failure to remove it so i'm aware that there are a number of cases that have been cited by the defendant here that are addressing structures built in other locations other than the land itself where an injury results from the completion of the construction of that object and in the case again by starting with the facts of this case there's a direct trust pass on land ravenswood was a case of a subway that was constructed a number of feet happened or whether it's an improvement to the land above it continues to be there it's an injury and the fact that it's there continues to cause damage to my client on a day to day basis what w that was that was part of our of our request that the what if this is what i know comment had brought this issue to the road commissioner and the road commissioner is standing by his firm  the issue the injury seems to have been caused by the fact that the permit indicates centerline of the road the measuring measure surveyor went out and actually measured from township road where because this road did not marry up so that the true center of the section line that part of it went into into my clients field that became apparent to the road commissioner at some point he actually ordered a survey has the right to and i believe the responsibility to instruct the utility to move those poles back in compliance with this permit the permit of course was issued because the illinois highway code gives him the jurisdiction to define what to do with these falls and the reason that they were being her place to begin with was they were going to upgrade their system and he on belief  knew that there was going to be wind turbines in this area so one of the ability to expand this road in the event that that became necessary that's what started this whole so i do not know why when it was discovered that these polls went past the right of way that they were not moved that that that permit was not of course that's precisely what precipitated this legal action because nothing was happening  type of situation that we're dealing with here what is your closers or strongest case well your honor i believe that the strongest case would be those cases cited that where found because the sewer line exceeded the eastman so that is a stream court case that is directly on point with what we're dealing with we here we also have above ground cases mcwilliams versus morgan was an older piece that we cited that was a lumberyard case where there were damages for unlawful entry for saudi lumber on the land without right we cited peral versus american telephone that's a six illinois supreme court case telephone line additions were added they were interfering with the plaintiff's trees those lines were actually put on the highway without permission was considered to poles that were being set up to support i believe in that case there was a traction company for a railroad they needed additional electricity lines were put up but they didn't have the permission so there was  now there are other pieces that i believe were cited by the defendant again these cases most of these cases deal with instances where an injury is occurring off the property the court is trying to determine how it would be known whether something built on that other property would cause cause the statute of limitations to run what is either known or not known what becomes difficult those cases and the reason the courts  sometimes it's not known to be typically for instance powell vs city of danville of the fourth district case where they were attempting to discover i think they were looking at what was thirteen to all five at that time  there were toxins being dumped on neighboring properties at that point was not maybe a mediately apparent what the injury was and of course that piece also looked at the case of look prone where sewage dumping was happening almost every day so the court was trying to determine ok is this is this injury happening every day or is the plant closed or is or you know is there one one sort of final sewage dump that happens and then you know the statute of limitations starts to run we don't have any of these complicated sort of issues with this particular case we know that the encroachments happened at least we suspect from the survey that's happening we shown in our pleadings that we believe it's happened and the injury is clearly apparent and it's clearly happening every single day so so fifty years from now hypothetical landowner as our whole running i'm not saying that there may not be other defenses to that particular cause of action but i would say well because i believe that there are i mean i believe there is a the concept of adverse possession does exist you know i do believe  i have a private use to my land this is it and you are on it regardless of whether or not what your intent may be or whether good or bad it's a strict liability type that's all i do not necessarily buy into that notice on my property i do not consume so that our whole being on my property that is no longer  one of the one of the things that i noticed with that particular case is that the holdings in a lot of these cases are are very limited and stacked and back specific in fact in a very similar type of pieces zimmer versus  willowbrook the court actually said that we believe a continuing trespass had has occurred here they were looking at the five year statue of limitations on that and that we want to limit cases like flyers to insistence where we're dealing with sanitary one of the other things that i brought up that we brought up is the fact that although it is not specifically clad that way this way what is it essentially happened in this particular matter in our opinion i any due process for arcot my client at all yet he didn't file suit and still more than one year later and aug twenty sixth team so that's a clear violation of the one year limit under the tort of immunity act to bring an action a civil action against a local governmental employee files an action the plaintiff has to plead sufficient fast to show that the action complies with the statue of limitations they didn't do that and not only was there a complaint filed initially there was a the affirmative matter that you asserted in the two six nineteen months of that's correct yeah so them we get to the issue of is this constituted continuous toward trespass and the rule of law there was that the continuing violation is occasioned by continuing i'm awful acts and contact not by continual effects from an initial violation and so here we have it a poles that were installed and then there's been no change since then so the extent that that's an invasion the that happened in the fall of twenty fourteen and nothing has changed since and they may not like the fact that the poles are still there the plaintiff doesn't but that's the continual affects from this alleged initial violation so this is not a case involving a continuous trespassers or based on distinctions between bank of ravenswood in this case but the plaintiff and that matter did a survey trespass claim against the city of chicago and although the subway was nine feet below ground subway was underground it was affecting people above ground they were alleging trespass but i believe this the subway system was completed in some time in one nine hundred eighty eight yet the plaintiff property owners of bug run didn't file s of the poles being installed it wasn't it was more than you know it's almost two years later there was some analysis and ravenswood about you know sort of the one year stash an appliance toward the end of the act or the four year analysis i don't really know what to make of that all i can say is i think at this point the court has to follow the wire baker raven's what those cases are more recent and i think the that could have been that and also i know that a sewage line and so maybe that was a continuous court because sewage was constantly going through that line on somebody else's property we don't have those kind of facts here but merely i don't think   the up stream landowner constructs a levee and then there's flooding on the downstream landowners property and that if this is happening every year or so that around stream land owner file seven years ago but it's still causing additional problems today but here all we have are power poles that were installed that are unchanged and so but of course my opponent is saying well such holes prior to the utility company moving or replacing the pool and then but when he filed his amended complaint he changed the wording a little bit when he says that we didn't make a improper or placement class holes but in but even if the court has to stretch and say well maybe he was there when it happened there's no indication that we'll webber directed com head to place the pools outside of the right away when the polls were place we weren't there om but i don't my question is i think a on the if what your position is has here is it your position that the holes were twice more than one year or less than one year comment had asked for some guidance in that regard but mr weber seemed to indicate that perhaps that the measurement from the pins was the correct measurement so in i believe that that  where i think the regardless of whether or not he had great intentions with the permit and he felt it was clear there was there was an issue and it caused these holes to be moved in into my client's land and  he was aware at a certain point that it was on his way and i think that that's where we're can you know we're communicating in our complaint that there was a substantial likelihood that he was aware that the trust fast was going to occur  but getting back to this issue with think of ravenswood in and whether or not the continuing of the tortoise continuing it clearly is i mean it's on his land every single day  i guess you know without trying to get overly cute with an analogy the way that i see it is here's a for instance someone goes into one house uninvited turns on the sink leaves the water running leaves the water runs over the sink floods the house there's one act was one overt act there is an injury that continues from it syria number two what happens when somebody actually goes into the house uninvited without a lease and stays there for a year for two years can we say that somehow because he's been there uninvited for the course of the year or old per year that now the landowner cannot bring an action for a judgment or trust pass that seems completely an is is there a limitation on damages is that damages limited to the one year tort and that becomes the issue but in this particular instance counsel suggest honour's and because of that the court does not need to get into this complicated analysis of what was happening off the land when the construction is happening off the land and whether or not it should be known by the plaintiff whether an injury was happening and whether the statute starts to run that's not what we're dealing with in this particular instance those cases are confusing of a straightforward issue in our view i appreciate your time thank you thank you thank you both