is that matter existence three states solid liquid in gas and in the case of water water is the liquid ice solid in the gas the steam or water vapor freezes normally at thirty two degrees turns water vapor to twelve i was going to give you an example of how that can happen water and can melt without being thirty two degrees at the airport in  look if you're on a on a cold winter's day and icicles will be dripping but i have a better example i was driving on sunday after a rain shower down country road came over the hill and there was steam coming up off the road steam crickets created two hundred twelve degrees sunday it was about eighty five that's one hundred twenty seven degrees difference because of the heat of the sun why do i get into this well because the the  circuit court found that there could be no causal connection between a pile of snow and a patch of ice at least in part the evidence before it was that the temperature had risen above thirty two degrees so there could be no but i think that it is reasonable to infer that if you have a past of ockham's which although is still a solid and you have a pile of snow and they are next to each other that that the that is a is a reasonable inference which the court refused to make and i think in that instance was weighing the evidence and trying to decide where it's there were any ice could not have been there but up through the through the asphalt i don't think that i think what the the most reasonable possibility is that it came from the pile of snow it could have come one which is more likely but there is no evidence of it it could have not even snow it's ice from a previous event and then you've moved the snow off the parking lot the ice that was already there remains it hasn't been any melting that's a possibility but there is no evidence that there was ice on the parking lot before this snow two days before my point and for the circuit court to conclude that as a matter of law the ice preexisted and was a natural accumulation they might dispute whether or not that is a natural or unnatural you know but at least i think the court will agree that there's evidence that jeff pile of snow was there my client said it was there mr using said that you might have put some snow there when he was plowing the l snow which is you know white fluffy place and then we have ice which forms from the either rain which is freezing or snow which is melting and then refreeze so it it came from that from from the unnatural you lay the second one is that the testimony is that the rest of the parking lot was clear and this isn't a good situation and one of the cases where there was a gravel parking lot and there were you know there was some some effort to clean it and it had been unsuccessfully clean and so there was some snow left over after the plowed the testimony in there there's none no evidence that i know of t of the of the the parking lot otherwise this is somebody testify that the the snow was all removed us it was clean or did somebody testify they or was prepared to testify that they examined the parking lot guy it's a question of fact you're struggling with the question of fact which judge kavanaugh determined the facts for himself and in or summary judgment a jury should struggle with these questions what does mr what is mister bruce mean when he says the parking lot was clear well i mean to me it means that there is no snow or ice there that that it had been clear means that that and there is no evidence that it rained there is no evidence that someone poured lit would be in that spot there is no evidence that it was all that was left for my previous snow there is no evidence of anything else other than we have snow and we have ice and it can snow can change to ice or can change the liquid and then refreeze happens all the time in central illinois even if the ambient air temperature doesn't in starting this out with the natural law how did that steam come off the road it was only five years it can the sun can warm it up enough to afford the fall pile of snow enough to create a two foot in diameter that there wasn't this snow three days before and the out of the ice is left over from that i mean it did snow three days that's that's a fact well i mean you need from from from before the remove the removal of the larger quantity how many times he plowed off it in order to get summary judgment yes they do have that because there is a real they have to disprove that which you sort of half approve of before sure they have proved that it's not possible that there is no room no genuine question of material fact as to the source of that puzzle or pa water so your case rests on the natural inference that ought to draw you from the pile of snow and have created a question the fact that it came from the the the the melting pot i don't think i've created a question of fact and in order to in order to get summary judgment the manhole cover which is a depression in the in in a parking lot and they have plowed parking on a plowed pada clear except that of course you can't you can't get your plow down into a two foot diameter manhole cover summary judgment for the defendant but that's not this case is that there was evidence that said that the it was decided there was a there was a mcdonald's employee who said oh no there's always you know that that's a depression there and we you know there's this they can't plow that and the snow is always there why we have a different allegations against against mcdonald's if the if the if it's a you have on the curve and and it runs downhill water runs downhill and creates a passion of a puddle of water which refreeze if there was any evidence of there is there and there may be evidence of that it came from someplace else but all that does is create a question of fact merely raising the possibility that if they did well or fall raising hospital is speculation but if there was evidence that there had been previous knows and that the you know this was this was an emulation over time if there was that evidence that we created question a fact but there isn't even that evidence all there is is we have snow we have ice and it never got thirty two evolution if you can show the water running you know video of the water running out of the pile down the curve into the bottle and then washing refreeze overnight is there evidence slow can you can see it from the pictures that are in there specificity about where your client is often lation the door yes and half way from his art this is this you can look look at the pictures but he parked at the parking space closest to the door he's there at eight thirty every morning there was a very every morning you part of the parking space closest to the door and he's taking the path most directly to the door walked alongside his saw lettuce fall no one knew how long it had been there but the the natural inferences by proximity and the other condition of the parthenon i think do allow a reasonable inference which recreates a question of fact that that is that is our case and i know that if it did it it's a little difficult and it's difficult concept for me to to come to grips with that the defendants have to prove created i believe a question of fact as to one and in order to the end in order to eliminate that as the possibility they have to prove that there is no part of the fact that it was something else that it was a natural selection and and that underpinnings of the natural accumulation rule as this court court has stated in barber vs peters partners a number of other cases and this is important because explains why mr klein's argument can correct that we have any burden as cold wet winter as with every precipitation that in addition we've also got a large block to asians and temperature in a given week the temperature can go above and below freezing on multiple days and even within the same day that snow the water opportunities for that work freeze can cause hazardous conditions in areas where people want it's a known hazard in this part of the country and due to the widespread nature of these conditions at work so determined that it's unreasonable to ensure the parking lot was completely free of snow he didn't have to go out with me and shovels or other tools it was a basic plowed yet in the snow as much as possible out of the lot but the plaintiff testified to is that he felt any clear of snow melt or that this ice was melting or anything of that nature so again the burden is for the plaintiff to establish that my client was that single patch of ice before he failed to do so and that's the case by circumstantial evidence and of course some facts can be proven by circumstantial evidence but in the case law that has been put before the sport it is clear that before you can recover based on circumstantial evidence my client did not force pushing the snow up on that lot of on that medium but i think the evidence is such a court has to presume that there was a snow pile up there but again there's no evidence linking assuming that was shovelfuls away from the world that's true honor and again we don't know how that snow got there we do know that my client had no responsibility for removing snow from those curves and neither did mcdonald's employees when snow fell it landed on the curb and well i tell you this wasn't three or four foot snowfall we don't really have any evidence of it but i just think that's fair preserved but again that doesn't change the fact point of has the burden of linking that snow pile to this past ice and there's nothing in the record that does so there are multiple other possibilities that are more likely than the area now for example as the core pointed out there mr klein's argument that when the snow was removed snow could have been left over from the the prior snow ice could have been left there from prior snow or there's evidence because employees were spread salt in the area if there was s there was snow left over from prior snow falls and salt place down that would result in that water melting and then later be freezing but this court has stated barber that would be a natural humiliation nothing improper about those kind of efforts why this single solitary patch of ice would have formed next to the median when apparently the part of the point of the snow was piled all along this maybe what is it about this median that made a single solitary patch  forward any expert testimony on that issue but again more importantly if it's that inference isn't supported by the record i think that's where the focus should be because found the fact that water flows downhill is not enough you've got to prove it to direct testimony a link between the snow pile and the patch of ice that was kind of present  hornets case but it's not present here there's nothing linking these two how weather conditions and accordingly again without direct or circumstantial evidence connecting these t this first we heard mr nonis talk about snow coming off of tires and left over snow and salt by employee i will concede that there is some evidence that employees of mcdonald's put saul's out on them out on the sidewalks outside of the restaurant i don't think there's any evidence and because i tried i tried to find out what they did or didn't do but i don't think there's any evidence that they put any salt on the pile of snow which was out by where my clients are nor is there any accept the burden of proof to show that that there was an unnaturally humilation which i think i have done by circumstantial evidence and the defendant say that was my burden of proof you eliminate the other causes and i say what were other what other evidence is put forth that i have to eliminate that that was the cause of my client's the patch of ice my client fell on you know we can talk about that the block of ice falling from the sky or the spring suddenly coming up in the parking lot those are examples which i chose because they are so out of out of the realm of possibility yes if possible that snow came off fell off of a car it's also possible that some young boy decided that it was a really cool thing to do slide down a four foot foot pile of ice and move that the natural humiliation onto the parking lot ok but what we have is we have ice we have snow we have the natural laws that snow can melt even if the ambient temperature and that's that's the key that's going to testify to that a sixth grade science that is within the within the realm of understanding of the average driver and if we have to have if we have to have expert testimony to begin again that was my my purpose in talking about the steam in the eyes because if we have to have expert testimony to establish that ice can melt even when the n would have anything how would you get that evidence into the right yes question so they can even argue it's an inference that can be drawn from a well i mean if it's it's i guess i would ask the affect it was across the parking lot and the court said well you know we've been flying for your in your favor if you could if you could if you felt closer to the pilot if there was if there was a connection between the pile i don't have a direct connection where there's a slow but i do have the paths of vice at the foot of a pile of snow separated by a four to six inch curve for i think that there is an inference and that that the defendant using did not remove the snow from the parking lot in a reasonable manner he piled it at forty my twenty one foot can you show that is more probably true than not that your inference