smith we have four issues on appeal to the first one i think i hope it made it clear in the brief it has always seemed obvious to me that it's simply not obvious at least it was not obvious  smith at the time of the incident i don't think anybody bars i know disagrees with the fact that at the time of the incident the order was an aberration the grain of beans were pouring down on your understood see the photos in the appendix to the grid that correlate to confirm the testimony that when you're using the harbor in the hopper the beads would simply cover everything so that you may have them piece of machinery our position is quite simple it was not obvious to him as the circuit court judge did not really explain specifically why he thought the danger remained obvious i can only assume that because mr smith saw a hole four days earlier that the circuit court judge five that that meant that four days later he still had he still would remember it was there and would and to him it should still have been obvious i'm able to find a case where some court any court has held that if you've seen something and then sometime later that the fact is covered were hidden that you're still bound by what you saw earlier and even then it was should should go to contributory negligence which isn't an issue the issue is whether or not the farmer the farming enterprise or him a duty and it duty was to furnish him with a safe place to work if the court is not willing to accept that it was not open and obvious to mr smith at the time of the accident then the next question is was the circuit court correct when it found the the danger to the open and obvious when all it seemingly consider was the hole in the auger the circuit court in its in its discussion of the case ignored the fact that it was a combination of dangers mr smith was stepping over the auger and gentleman who's working there and and even if the court doesn't get to that point then the next question is he appreciated mr smith appreciate the risk because one of the rules is that you have to that has to not only be obvious which you have to appreciate the risk and my question is simply how can you appreciate the risk that you do not intend two to one to go and the best analogy i could use w or snowthrower analogy that i used in my brief now maybe and far enough down to southern illinois that i might have in central time i have to explain about this north shore but i'm from wisconsin so it was a good analogy when i had my bottle the old fashioned small throwers had  but my question is what if i'm up with my small throw in a slip and fall i no longer intend my hand to go into the discharge to shoot so i haven't haven't appreciated the risk because they don't even want to come to the risk i don't want anything to do with it it's an accident that's what happened here he did not he cannot be said to have appreciated the risk that he did not want to we come into if i have to move if the court needs to move in order to reverse the summary judgment we have to move to the fourth point whether or not assuming it's open and obvious there are two exceptions to the open and out of this rule that the liberty encounter exception and that was highlighted by the fever case that's of the cases that i think the grandfather of it if you're if the court recalls in the fever case the employer had been outside and scrap was thrown into it but a lot of this crap ended up around this the dumpster and in this situation mr meyer said to knock that mr smith was going to either step over the hopper or like most of the employees that were on the hopper because if the court recalls even mr  meyer himself stood on the hopper upon the days and open up the gate to the back of the truck to let the beans come up so we had to foresee that somebody was going to step on over the south or and he could foresee that something would happen just that was all in the hopper and really became came into force there's a duty on the part of the employer to inspect and what where with the duty to was fact be firmer or more concrete than a situation like this were a farming enterprise was apparently an old piece of equipment that you might not expect something new that just came down the road from john deere but all you have to do is look at the picture in the back it's a rusted old auger and happen that's the one you would expect but mr meyer testif er case in the schaefer case the worker on the construction site knew there was a hole in the floor but he was moving something later and forgot about it in this case the facts are much better for us because this is a case like all of the because they only unloaded half of it and if he if he can't stop you are because now it's full of beans and if he stops it and then runs up and walks and says we have a room it comes back down he's got the odd rock he'll sure the p because he's got such a low down the dog that's the distraction and that's surely seems to me i hope i hope the court sees it the same way that's a question for the jury was that reasonable was that foreseeable under any one of those four came to pick it up they could see it at the same time and under a veil meant that duty is owed to the time i give the person the product i do not have to warn the person about the danger if the person you see when i give the product that was the case that that's what we d of feel like that but then the judge moved forward and seemingly apparently forgot that there was a four day gap in between there and that by the fourth day it was no longer over and it was no longer obvious and mr smith and it would be up to the jury to look at this man in the eye and say i don't think you're telling the truth what would support that is the fact that i guess to fall everybody has always stepped down on this  you get squeezed by some barricades now he saw those barricades when he went in he just didn't think of them when he was going out i think it's the sense of the jury i don't know how that case to be different in this case both both at some point because i think if he put it he was because he was he didn't i just probably more accurate to say he didn't think about it i mean if this is something that would be argued for jury he didn't think about it because he was on his also that they didn't all remain at the same site all the time they were moved from place to place that's correct yes but so was there any way for him to know that people are going to that he had seen when he  on he was going to be giving it to his employees or putting it in place for his employees to use didn't he have some obligation to look at it but the general principle was the state of illinois you have to provide your employer day that he had a duty to inspect it was an unsafe condition in the court granny summary judgment said that that period of time was too short law well i mean this was this of a witness that mr meyer was borrowing from somebody else oh and was bringing it in for his employees to use he didn't know anything about it that thought because we're at the end of the day that he was going to get his cigarettes or cell phone which were in the suburban which was dreadfully cross from the hum that's a question in fact  distracted if they do then we should prevent if we don't we will lose but we do have the right to get to that point in my final point i want to the court has some questions is that in all the time counsel was up here i saw the same thing happen question foreseeability can be a question of why i would have to say depending on the facts in this situation you have you have the sides not agreeing as to what the facts are as to what people could ever be reasonably fine that that mr meyer could foresee that someone might step into this hole or might slip on the carpet or might forget about the whole especially where he doesn't expect the whole thing to argue that mr meyer when i first see that this would happen when he when he did know that because he didn't know the hole was the