descent or rational for them to be gone and i also live simply that this stairway is nonconforming in any way to any known coal mine for that reason it's on reasonably dangerous plaintiffs doesn't know why she fell and affidavit he and others have studied it who were to read one of those articles closely you would see a couple examples where the staircase was noticed where there was a defect and essentially one in twenty or one in fifty users on these two different steps either disappeared were down in orders of magnitude to one in the thousand or less and so i have two arguments with respect to why does someone judgement was inappropriately granted first that the handrail or for some reason i think that's within a jury's progress i think they could lose this case at trial but i don't think if someone judgment under the facts that we have here it should have been taken away from injurious consideration really and indeed on that  and real issue alone because only give the then benefit of the down to the defendant by saying that well she wasn't going to use the hand rail even if it were there i mean you get this circular this argument that you only get t or that frankly negligent act that she wasn't going to use it or was going on it wasn't going to help no i mean i think if you legally categorize well the only way to i mean that's reason i think it's not going well in this case i think it comes down the proximate cause i mean judge powers did not believe that that element was satisfied and as pointed out by both that and you don't need an expert for this that hand rails in place to help people downstairs and to stop a while once they've begun and so that's why get to the point myself where i say which is essentially what judge powers was the reason to get to that conclusion and i call it the benefit of the doubt that she's not going to use it but the speculation is that she wouldn't use it i don't know why we why the plane it would be subject to that to that standard here mr mayor of the property of your problem is that your burden understood that you have to prove that some evidence that the absence of the handrail that question wasn't specifically asked when you have used the handrail which was basically even the actual act question i don't you know i don't know whether i would have used the hammer because it wasn't fair you know and would that have really saved the day if someone would have said would you have used the hand rail if it was there and she said oh yes our half of the time when i descend the stairs i use a hand well well maybe this was the other half and you would have used it in the willows again it's it's  you don't need an expert right i don't think to talk about him well since we all use them and we've all used them for most of our lives since we've been able to walk and perfectly walk downstairs so isn't that enough for the jury to consider when proximate cause is generally a question for the jury to decide whether or not this point it was going to use it and whether that would have saved her from falling and being injured i think it is your your client testified that she didn't have any who studied extensively say people movement for literally decades and many settings has presented it and passed by around the world and has published the on anyone that i know all by this subject who says it is subject to scientific study frequent even though the plaintiffs are him or herself maybe dead unconscious or what or whatever reason unable to testify why they slid off or one off the roadway ah how personally don't we have the same testimony powers should be looked at the same way here there you had an older gentleman who couldn't feel a speed walking backwards down the stairs here we have a young lady who is using a stairway like it's designed to be used  what people normally do in these situations and we have a very well qualified as for who's never been challenged in this case never been challenged who says i and others have studied at great length as missteps and falls into that example that i started out with earlier about how you can have a bad set of stairs and have one out of twenty people making missteps not following but misstep and down the thing in some fashion and then go corrected and have that camera watch less than one in a thousand people i'll make that you're in thank you and so the fact that this plane it doesn't know the exact reason why she fel frankly doesn't surprise need to the slightest that i've found it many times in my practice and it certainly doesn't surprise because who says rightly saturday that you know that that doesn't surprise me in fact most of the time someone who almost on the stairs say it happened at this spot or i don't mind would shout out from media there's some description which may not make any sense whatsoever and why do we not let an expert who he on as the part of this and i submit you that we do in many many many other areas of the law and the fact that i had chosen to use j paul's here rather than just let this case go away it should it should not be any different than any of the other many cases where we use experts to explain why something basically the essence of  the word the cost of all or how they contributed to the cause in fact he can't even explain whether or not the point fifteen into contact with any of those as just mcdade was questioning the counsel about w what she was unable to testify if she was near the wall when she fall that's not in the record so we don't even know if the hand rail would have been helpful tip over your honor is the standard in this case for what is necessary for a proximate cause is best construction went on to say that proximate cause cannot be predicated upon speculation surmise or conjecture and then when this court used the word conjecture it use that word knowing that the definition of conjectures is a proposition equal proximate cause and that proximate cause must be a set can only be established where there is reasonable certainty that the defendant's negligence actually caused the fall and that's what's missing here there's not been any link that  lights she also had been up and down the staircases hundreds of times so there's is an argument that this could have been those the facts were not actually causing falls every single time she could evolve as common sense would tell us people tripped over their own before there is no piece of there is no fact out there there's no testimony there's nothing in the experts affidavit explains why or how these defects actually cost them all the only thing that's thrown out there by this expert is the possibility the possibility well one of one or more of these have caused all this in the past therefore they must have been the cause of the food in the case of our that's not reasonable certainty that's not enough to testify under these circumstances how many more experts are we going to throw out and how many other plaintiffs will we leave outside the courtroom i think we have a very sophisticated system of poor law in this state and in this country and we have checks and balances with respect to experts and in the final say we have a jury to say i don't believe that i believe this instead and so if we're going to leave this kind of an expert testimony out they'll probably get lots more as well  fortunately for all of us that there's not send information to that which in the brain to go from memory and he goes on to talk about how one doesn't remember using a staircase because just like walking down a sidewalk it's a natural learn that and so why the playfield as well as what is other people don't remember why or how they fall is completely understandable now if you want to toss them out of jake defendant would want us want me to do i'm not going to do an hour i'll support my case by reason scientific study by someone who's going to present reasonable testimony and if the jury says no i don't believe it i think issue for a jury to decide that that's where we should be and that's where the defendant wants us to go and where we go there not only is this case lost but a lot of the accident construction cases on the roadway cases a lot of products cases he says where there is some not a question of fact that the judge can decide at this level it's essentially a proximate cause argument and this case should be informed jury based on j paul's affidavit and what he brings forward and explaining why this happened knowledge of any thank you of any skerries are almost on every day occasion if you're going to go up and down says there's and i think a jury could evaluate that aspect of this case