realized that the condition presented and a reasonable risk of harm three the vessel or should have known three repair accounting would fail to remedy the situation and for the vessel or help to create a hazard and then that created the hole that became the dangerous situation that's correct with looking after the break your bell went for a major renovation the upper deck being near the pilot house and the pilot house were both removed leaving these holes exposed for some and new things were put in place the hazardous condition was created when the decking was removed and either no scaffolding was placed underneath at the request of the vessel on or it was not addressed in the safety the judge actually holds that the job superintendent for the entire work was a minor the judge does not hold that the i've already addressed the fourth prong on how the hero helps create the hazard they helped create the hazard by not requiring that arise scaffolding placed scaffolding under this that knowing that was going to be exposed or simply on a ship and doesn't have anything to do with it here we have someone who goes for the ship actually came in contract of the contracted with ph contract with the rise scaffolding others to perform work it's now in the dry do problem as opposed to create and that's why i can see your perspective however the dangerous condition doesn't just exist because there's an open hole the dangers conditioning really begins to exist because people are required to work around conditions i'm having some difficulty with with everything you're saying this is something that comes after the condition was created in the in the in the case such as peterson and others and we have we're dealing with repairs the idea was that this was a dangerous congestion condition that existed and this is what this is the condition that the repair person is coming to actually fix that's not the situation here mr the fall protection prior to them going up and working also created a hazardous condition where they were going out unawares what fall protection they should be thinking in order to work at that unprotected height on that leading edge  the statute and mr winter then was face a dilemma as he tried to prove that stern wheelers had sufficient control over vessel on or knew or should have known that the employer of the injured party  was not available to testify in that position or trial so there's no evidence if we if we look at the the elements of the student intervene there's no evidence that the that the that there was there's no reason to find that there's a reasonable appreciation of a problem here in the first instance a problem by the way that as a regular piskies problem that this of the city of duties was to put the responsibility and cost on the party who is in the best position to avoid an accident and that would be the stevedore with  have somebody there and they did inspections and that they say that mr meyer was in overall control of the job so that he could have said and your safety made you not addressing the safety concerns exist on this fact and i think we're dealing with whether there was a duty to intervene and what happens i think most of these cases the extent the beauty ok but i mean with respect to the specific findings  i think it was your honor went out in regards to directing them these are the work and what nails and what boards and how to pay him and how to treat him but as far as inspecting