right because you know i don't know where you're allowed to file a conditional motion like that but if you are this isn't one that wants to keep you needed to because of the training was a conditional motion it would say ok if you because remember issue first as this court is requested but i'd like to supplement the facts a little bit there was no agreement for an agreed order when i dance off chacon my trial attorney said and he told the court this repeatedly at the motion and so he did not start this motion he in fact denied it and that's very clear in this record because the notice of appeal was not timely fattened him thirty days of that denial which was the twenty second time around october twenty two this motion both by its title and the time to appeal that's one way to look at this and that's i think the correct way to look at this but the other possibility is what is that this was a second post trial motions and he says it wasn't a success but the first motion was denied it was never vacated instead plaintiff is granted leave to again file the same motion so it is file the previously filed motion i think that a written order governs over what's said in court i can provide that authority after argument but even even if the trial court thought he had the ability to reinstate that motion even if he thought he had that power the bottom line is supreme court rules trump that and at the point they appealed the question is case had been there seven years and for seven years everybody knew miss policy in his court room requirement that you appear on your own motion i don't think it's on her a bit it's not your own you right this is not an equitable kind of a situation but let's look at the activities anyway because i think these bright line jurisdictional requirements by the supreme court in the case law has been clear but in this case it really was an unfair jurisdictional issue and i don't know fill in the records talk about the phrase protective notice of appeal but certainly the federal courts talk about this point better and it is an acceptable way to protect yourself it's like pleading the alternative planet for lies really on the lack of direct evidence and he would have this court disregard the circumstantial evidence he says well he doesn't care that there's no direct  testimony but if there's no eyewitness testimony then you have to look at the circumstantial evidence and hear the circumstantial evidence shows that they are open and obvious conditions that were dangerous there were a large  and very slow moving part weighed hundreds of pounds and there was obvious construction going on in the room in the e r does cement floor was being weighed so it was wet there was a fan trying to trying to and there were warning signs around the with cement and everyone else managed to avoided this construction the cards paid attention to be on the pushing the gurney or did he veer off white blooms a said and they would like to stand corrected he did testify he wasn't holding onto the gurney one hundred percent of the time so i stand corrected i said that incorrectly grade another question that the jury had to decide was you gotta love george during his testimony this guy who pushes a cart around for a living and he is so honest and he says you know i don't know i thought i was attempting media on somebody maybe i did not don't you think that if i tell somebody i had no way this is it kind of who he is doesn't really know what happened but it is possible and he did say that it was possible but he also said little did he touch him here did i touch him he didn't know and the jury had to make that decision there was an issue about the warning signs i mean the jury saw photographs about these warning signs and they were testimony there were injury results from in countering unknown or open an obvious condition is clearly a property factor to consider with comparative negligence i believe i w was that the issue contributory negligence was presented i don't think it was in the evidence for it to be there once is there and this is why i objected to it it's a warning they feel that i am in the