others one outside because they were told to leave the bar while outside in the parking lot my client because of the traffic and the amount of people there was not able to move his car immediately and thereafter after he got out of his car he had an exchange of words with a woman who was there and subsequently was punched from a blind side he suffered severe injuries to his eyes socket as a cord as well where  however property owners do and you need to protect them criminal acts of a third party when there's one in a special relationship and two when the criminal act was recently for seal and i think that's when analyzing whether or not  there's a duty here our main question is not whether or not there is a special relationship i believe that's conceded in the the apple lease brief as well my client was a customer of the bar he was certainly a business invite key of the bar he was on their premises they needed means on their premises at the time that the incident occurred outside the question is whether or not a criminal act of albert four was reason to be reasonably foreseeable to get offended and i suggest that when you look at the facts that it is certainly reason we first see a will in the facts here ford was at the bar there was a fight inside the bar that he was involved in the one point which i think is crucial in determination of this matter which i feel the trial court here is the characterization of will kind of fight this was this the facts and i believe lampreys the fact that ford was involved is there was this large fight inside for was involved along with some friends they were pushing other individuals there was a pile on the inside people were certain in the the discovery deposition that the first time he'd seen this before it was when he was standing in line to use the washroom and thereafter when he came out of the washroom is when he saw mr ford and his friends involved in this altercation with other individuals and we we look at the facts here in the bars close to the f b i to the parking lot and we have this gentleman mr for who my client identifies several months later when he sees a picture in the paper for an unrelated harassed my fine indicates yeah that was the guy that was a guy who was not only he struck me with the guy who was involved in the fight inside the bar and my contention is my client is that because he was an employee here on the premises and because of the knowledge of the bar that there was this fight inside and they turned the lights on and sent everyone outside that there's a good certainly reason we foreseeable that a person who's engaged in a fight inside the bar is going to carry it outside there's no indication in the record whatsoever that bouncers were involved mr ford and friends involved and the in the face of the cops with other individuals i think when you look at the deposition as a total of that that becomes clear and i think that's that's a key a key point this lights and say last call what is the evidence that it would be reasonably foreseeable took her by her tribute to the corporation to the bar that but i don't think that she would have the reason more foreseeability for as it relates to just the i guess the way to describe her answer the question is that i think when she sees this older cation inside the bar see you know again there's no evidence of what whoever was in charge the last i saw in the light most favorable to the plaintiff you apparently have some sort of pushing contest  with og mr ford and one of his friends and also great combs talks about then his deposition too but the crowd up here is not the kind of target which makes future lines you know so on that argument just doesn't hold water in this situation or frankly in most situations even if you assume that the bars saw something whatever was their response was reasonable but they did reaching the duty here on the other the support to know here is there's really no nexus between what apparently happened inside the bar and what happened in the parking lot in the bar  part of the bar that's all i think that there certainly knowledge circumstantially if not direct that the bar had knowledge of the fight they saw the the actors in the fight and they said everyone outside it in the analogy that i made at the