between creating the a the natural accumulation of snow which is our contention here there was no natural cumulation snow and in the formation of weiss the two were connected and they hadn't encourage people that have no duty to remove stuff in this case there were decorations with very definitive duties defined these were contract hazardous conditions acknowledge that people have been injured by their condition and doing nothing about it a conscious disregard for safety in this case the testimony of record is that accurate it was out on the the plaintiff came walking along the walkway slipped and fell and allege that based upon the fact that another person had fallen on down walkway a week before his accident was a nephew was the defendant's nephew   there's a lot of liberty being taken with some of the testimony in this case i would argue by that point if the testimony is that accurate edge he had at hand the ability to apply to serve substance or soul testimony of record if there was it to my inches of snow on the ground and accurate it was not out of the property snowplowing but so needed to be applied the board president  ridge to come to the property and apply sell to the sidewalks that was allowable under this contract so the notion that the contract didn't provide for g i c or sultana sidewalks is the absolutely false and it recently it was the result of the snowstorm that's correct and the testimony record is that between february first and february sixth approximately eighteen inches of snow fell there is some contradiction in the record about if there was any the that the failure to inspect could be deemed to be willful and wanton conduct the there is a right and duty when one says i will make sure that the walkway is re contract and we contracted that snow removal work out to a company that said they do it and did it to the language of four point eleven and the declaration says that all areas of contracts troops know when i'm still enjoying immunity under the act that was the plaintiff's argument next case and the court rejected it was the first district in two thousand and eight you know yes the declarations weren't specifically discus were there any allegations of improper snow storage and again he answered that question is no where if you look at the complaint and can't want to i'm going to go through it there are several paragraphs paragraphs between the association was required to properly prove so  nice paragraph twenty the association had snow removal activities initiated but such activities were backed unfinished an incomplete and the list goes on and on of the paragraphs where the word snow removal or incomplete snow be i didn't want to get to your question about that you would ask what difference does it make if it is an unnatural or natural accumulation of snow or ice under the act and my response would be it doesn't make a difference because we're talking about two different concepts that are being confused  this case we pitched this to the court is that there are two independent b c s upon which summary judgment would by the trail could be affirmed and they are not at all dependent upon one another what is the snow and ice removal act and they were entitled to immunity under it and the second is the natural accumulation rule i have not addressed the natural accumulation rule yet i want to do so briefly with the court this morning  right so there were a lot of differences in the evidence in russell vs this case and russell there were pictures the court might recall from the day after the accident of the iceman and or the snowman i'm sorry in the ice patch there was testimony in the runoff from the nearby snowman we don't have any of that in this case we don't have here the plane doesn't know what caused the ice caps to form that's her testimony we don't have pictures of this  patch we don't have meterological there to support you know there is testimony in the record that the day before the accident this is chad park's testimony that the temperature got up to thirty seven degrees and that would be sufficient to rule which would negate the notion that any duty to the plaintiff in relation to this decisive cash i do want to mention briefly is well there are two motions pending in front of the court that were taken with the case