it's which had no wall on the left side had no adult handrail on the right hand side and had had no signage whatsoever  was walking up the staircase behind his two year old granddaughter he was watching her very intently making sure she navigated the stairs ok and he tripped and fell breaking his hip now the trial court's ruling in this case was very confusing and had can also apply seemingly conflicting stands trial court also made no record are regarding some of the factors that the court should have done in applying the standards of the court did the court had a very simple ruling stating that st there is no evidence of a defect with the stairs and that allegations of the alleged dangerous conditions were that the open obvious doctrine applied to this issue that the staircase was open and obvious danger well then through the standards that the trial court also stated it relied upon shouldn't apply if the danger is over an obvious there is you don't have to have evidence  a defense you also don't have to have evidence of notice because that's the nature of the over an obvious danger so if the purports to rule here was very confusing the court seemed to be relying upon the fact that based upon the defendant's argument that the staircase with an open obvious danger if that's true then the trial court should have gone through the even if should have gone through the traditional judy analysis the danger is over an obvious you still must go for the duty analysis also the trial court should consider whether one of the exceptions for the over an obvious rule why there are two exceptions they are an obvious rule actually distracted in this case the judge we argued that there was a question of fact as to whether the staircase was open it was an open obvious testified that when he was crossing the landing and entering the door from the kitchen and going to the stairs he testified it was kind of dark like he was going from light to dark down there he testified that he had to place foreseeable that a daycare or her shouldn't dissipate that people picking up very own children sure years old in this case could be distracted as they are watching that child to make sure they don't hurt themselves as they leave the facility there in a daycare facility in the st place because they need to be watched it is foreseeable that parents will be watching those same young children as they are leaving the issue is not attention was on her he and i think the the most salient testimony he gave was he was asked to describe how he acts with the school and we got to the steps and they disappear i'm behind my grandbab because she's only two and we go up the steps i'm behind her watching her i get to the top step and there i go i fell flat on my face that's exactly the type of situation that the guns courts talk about where that's exactly the supposed to come of the kind of situation here he was actually distractor and his for seeable by the daycare center and people watching their young children as they're eating their big care facility would be focused on making the st two factors weigh in favor of the point if the distraction social lives it is more foreseeable that they may be injured it is more forseeable that there is going to be a likelihood of injury that is what the b applying the courts found that there was actual evidence of discretion in the ward court it was the shop or walking out of the store and walking into a concrete pillar and they said that or the and they're just simply focus again the court didn't focus on whether the power of the meter to the self was created out the window or it was whether they were distracted when they injure themselves and if the courts in retro found that someone could simply be that case involved a high school football player walking across a parking lots carrying a helmets to a player because the coach said go get a helmet and some of the court foreseeability of the injury is it foreseeable that that patrons could be watching their children as they leave the building yes that is the st gets forseeable in all cases where the courts found that the plaintiff was those cases the courts found that it was foreseeable i'm defendant's part that the plaintiffs would be distracted so the court found in the case with the kid with the football helmet that it's foreseeable that the child would have been distracted the that's how they could injure themselves so here here we're saying that the distraction assumption should apply because there is evidence that he was actually distracted watching his granddaughter he wasn't just looking elsewhere actually in the bron you know in relation to counsel just argued the st point is the trial court erred you know using conflicting standards land grant the defenders motion for summary judgment you know specifically regarding an open obvious and the notice but that that both of those are her quired elements in the illinois pattern jury instructions are premises liability cases where plaintiff who wants to who is able to prove negligence claim their crimes is likely situation instructed in the same issues precluding the duty on behalf of the defendants here as their owners point out you know there is really no dispute that this is assuming that this is sterile as counsel is saying is the supposedly dangerous condition there is no such external factor mr holder's focus on his granddaughter was an internal decision which is very sad distinction and distinguishable from the cases that they  actually completed climbing the stairs at the time her fall he was specifically asked you know why this should make it up the stairs and he said yes and that was prior to this fall so i had the time of his actual fall he was not which is also supported by the fact that his right flight was already on the landing so in for garcia the distraction exception applies for mr holder straps as they are here he clearly knew that was the last step there to get on the landing time he's not distracted he knows there's a step there and that's what distinguishes this from the cases that counseled relies on where the plaintiff was actually distract the time of the injury you know the point where he was not able to period and sion to what the condition underlying his injury was instead these facts are really more similar to what this court found kleiber vs freeport farm fleet it was very similar there a plane was carrying a bag of topsoil and while walking in a there is a court emphasize that the plaintiff testified she saw the pallet saw the holes in the pallet recognize the size of the pallet and how high the palatable was on the ground here the testimony is very similar if not identical entirely had one foot on the landing of the last one so there are others and his granddaughter was done climbing the stairs the reason there are those straps there is no reasonable foreseeability for the difference to expect that he would be so distracted from the time it takes from one foot could make the stab and the other foot to change elevation then he would forget the existence of the step and he w after the warning signs that it's still unclear exactly what the warning signs much was she warned him off he was fully aware that there were stairs again he knew there were three of them he had just come down the set of stairs just minutes previously and he was walking to work additional measures that they could have taken st there's no such requirement unclear as to what he signed for help in that situation and similarly with there there was a hand on the left side he chose not to you say so the fact that there is no handle the right side i mean that's that's not an issue and  especially when they're as small as two years old and not the best walkers so it doesn't matter that if they're that he got to the top of the staircase and that's perhaps when he fell to testify he is still watching his granddaughter and the issue is whether there's evidence that he's actually distracted and that is what you're on our staff here it comes down to whether since we're talking we're talking a lot about there was a distracted was not actually scratched it was he  to whether it forgetfulness or distraction exception applied whether he was actually distracted is a question of fact which should have precluded summary judgment is here this court can find that there is evidence of a failed to protect himself against navigating the staircase at the sake of watching out for his daughter to see for gore his own safety to make sure that he was that his granddaughter to your granddaughter was sick that's what that this court