career i'm going to address the issues on appeal in the following order the negligence claim against the defendant greeting the state created danger claim against any reading and the ratification claim against lee county the district court committed reversible error under oregon law for c ability refers to the generalize risks of the types of incidents and injuries that occur not the predictability of the actual sequence of events the record evidence and treatment sense inform us that unauthorized access to a loaded firearm creates a wide spectrum of forseeable harms to others and that suicide is among the forseeable harms in this case fall into two categories the firearm may accidentally discharged and injure someone or the firearm may be used in to intentionally harm someone or oneself to paraphrase the court in stewart versus jefferson plywood both of these categories of risk are within the community's general knowledge of the way harm from unauthorized access to a loaded firearm they occur in stores the community is general knowledge of risks associated with finding a neg was sufficient to make the st sale go eighty of an injury to a volunteer firefighter on the roof of an adjoining building who fell through a concealed skylight a jury question in this case the community is general knowledge of the risks associated with leaving a loaded firearm accessible and unintended they've received realty of williams suicide injury question the evidence in the record on the general community knowledge is illustrated by wayne county's own suicide prevention website which identifies access to a firearm as a risk factor for suicide we've also put in the record in one thousand nine hundred and three study published in the american journal of diseases children titled firearms and adolescent suicide that study documents the association between adolescents who as i and access to are indeed that study recommends that pediatricians inform parents that the presence of firearms in the h may be associated with adolescent suicide even in the absence of a clear psychiatric illness in the record in this case there is a pediatric parent from williams a sixteen annual checkup in that document the pediatrician directs the parents to lock up all guns in your house is a standard wording on pediatric device to parents and so that warning was not specific to william the way you put it that this was a standard well i don't know what of paediatric his examination and finally both the in terms of general knowledge the c d c and the oregon health authority recommend restricting access to firearms as a means of reducing suicide by statement takes place with mr green being aware that one month earlier before the suicide william had lost his st the context is that  young girlfriend that he had a high school the context is also the father mr greening was concerned about william's strange much from his mother and his isolation of himself it all so there were these recent in time to the event flags and then there were was mr green's knowledge of his gather from the brief is that none of those red flags it is really a necessary component of your case it's enough just that me the general risk that something bad would happen with a loaded gun left on the tenant in the home case because the club was aware that prior shootings that occurred in the area and that there was a danger of assault simply lote associated with that area and  it would not and i think there's record evidence that supports that as well so that record evidence has to do with how lame county grohl and probation officers are required to treat their firearms in their own workplace and in their workplace they are surrounded by other police officers who are familiar with handling weapons yet they're required if that weapon is not on their person that they unfamiliar with those weapons or probationers coming through the opposite accessing those weapons without authorization and in creating risk ok but what i hear you saying that is that as you understand oregon negative law if you have a gun on or leave a loaded firearm an attendant in your home you are potentially responsible for basically anything bad that happens with a gun whether it's accidental or intentional whether  is one of the risks that was presented by the location the gun was left in the house and the state's or a your family member who you may not perceive as at risk maybe at risk negligent did not occur you start with the overwhelming fact and the shocking and unique act of a suicide then you move to looking at whether or not there are special circumstances in this impact or effect of the suicide as the act that causes damaged those spaces normally go on questions of fact of whether there was a known suicidal person within the home was there or were there kids under age that yes one of the cases pointed out that you know there's it's known by parents that you know kids don't always obey rules they don't make they make bad decisions and things like  that you look at whether or not there's a person who has exhibited behavior that and sampson i have logical issues or a person who has threatened others or threatened themselves counseling kids in their reply brief that we do not deal with the do about the history of that individual of breaking into the plaintiff's ouse and knew that that individual was alarmed about the prospect of going to prison and he knew that straker the individual had threatened the within the general foreseeability that they're going to get injured what is not foreseeable is any firefighters whites will be emotionally lose control watching him fall through the skylight and rus your position your i gather you would agree that if you had a six year old and had accidentally shot himself with a gun that that would be comment about you know us at a certain age children are known to disobey admonitions warnings be careful you know and i mean it is here though you're on the facts in this case are no suggesting he was eighteen years old saying i mean i'm not saying that well gee if this would have happened on the last day of his seventeen year we have a different situation then the st day of his th year ok i'm not arguing well what you look at you scratching situation this was a horrible out that this was something that is stunning to both the mother who is the person representative of the state bringing this case let me ask you to right by the do or maybe the balance is negligent not now why isn't that the way to look at it rather than foreseeability that is when one has a goal and there are all kinds of different avoided or i mean you're basically you know there's there's five elements out of it out of the oregon negligence actually foreseeability you know being one of them and then oregon courts and talked about the interchange between some of the elements  light of the risk you have to look at the particular risk and the particular risk here williams ringback ideation you know taking his own lives and that's the question is is potential incidence or injury that would produce negligence on behalf of the defendant raining if somebody broke in maybe and used the gun you have you know i mean there's different there's different matters  and i think you have to go back and look at the case because suicide has historically forever been consider in the intervening hard successor printing office and i mean i'm not taking that position today but it still starts the analytical groundwork you have to look at the act that caused the damages which was the decision to take his own life and then move backwards and take a look at the circumstances in this case t determination as to whether these circumstances are special and not the date they change the way that the intervening intentional act of the defendant harm him self and in this case i think the  exactly correct those thing that was the thing that was probably the biggest impact and that most of her summary judgment is we took depositions and we put them on under  despite what she alleged in her complaint about all this advanced knowledge that he was at risk that he was a child risk and things like that it came out and i listed it in my brief all of the things that the mother set this was a complete shock to everyone nobody saw this coming she she didn't know she said nobody ever diagnosed him as being suicidal he never said that anybody was suicidal he was doing great in school this was one of that led to an eighteen year old suicide should be dismissed ratification requires a plaintiff to show the authorized policy makers approved a subordinate position and the basis for it the approval must be conscious and affirmative appellee should be dismissed because there was no policy about home storage of privately owned firearms when mr mansour green committed suicide however there is now home storage privately owned weapons is now mandatory policy you'll find out a supplemental excerpt of records age four and five dollars the change in poli shows that the final draft of the new policy predates the complaint that's excerpt of record page five appellant then changed her argument to say it was her attorney's port claim notice that compelled a pelleas to drop the new did not know that he his sons his son had suicidal ideation you'll find that supplemental excerpt of record or income as the court writes a policy makers pronouncement that he has not or wil made a conscious decision to expose his son to the danger of his on the candid loaded and exposing william downstream greeny could not have committed that it's not and he intentionally wanted to you actually wanted something bad to happen to us what it was accidental or intentional but come on you know that is really just an offensive argument or you're playing the wrong standards look at it's unreasonable to leave a gun out in a room full of police officers who know how to handle weapons which is what lane county's rule at the office is