donald talks about if the condition is something that is related to the business of the of the proprietor of the company and don open it is lee was a onion that got left on the floor flopped on the floor and someone slipped down and most cases following donaho is sliding glass doors in a business and a woman walked through a side panel in for reasons that nobody was certain of the sliding door actuated injure so and donahoe applied the court found donaho which eliminates the need for notice so those cases it seems to me have always been allowed to proceed in parallel like when the i home i think they both proceeded to the jury they both the jury is instructed on both and there's a number of cases which talk about the jury being instructed professional standard of care about what the inspection should be or what the repair frequency should be the other one is notice of the condition whether the condition could occur or the condition did occur which is not donal that's a of the view that the case i was reading and in particular some of the one sided by the defense like the salada case which admittedly is a federal case with a tile loose to coca cola the syllabi the court found i disagree with that but the court found check every single time ok that wasn't an expert standard of care it wasn't an expert opinion about what the coca cola company should do so one way to do it would be add an expert saying how often they should do it another would be inter that if the product had been there for a week and nobody and someone got hurt their argument would be it's brand new why are we supposed to check it now it's been there thirty years and never checked and some of which are at some point i think it's a question of fact  need to exercise ordinary care to meet in a program in a reasonably safe condition and they did zero they didn't they didn't satisfy their doing they didn't do anything if they have a an inspection process once a year once every five years once a week and they did it then they would say we did this we couldn't catch that problem we couldn't find we didn't we we satisfied our duty they didn't do that you would like  ordinary reasonable care and what is that is up to the finder of fact as to whether or not they did do that under these circumstances and it was a point made i think in the defense brief well we'll have a or like the coca cola case does the coca cola case mean that we don't that a property owner doesn't have to check if it's a tile or if it's in a bathroom rarely used now but i think the court should be doing is point back from what is reasonable under the floorboard we're looking at the plastic support wouldn't have discovered it so that the floorboard i i think the photos were great i think they were photocopy photos this was a later copy photos suspended a familiar with the suspended device you ok so these plastic pieces that are underneath it that hold it up there they're like they're like walls like an egg crate i think someone mentioned that look so those are broken off lifting it up with a show that's one requires to figure out if this floor sick but i still you didn't answer my question because you say merely stepping on the floorboard or looking at the plastic support would have discovered the condition there's no evidence in the record th stepping on the floorboard would have always felt it or looking at using going underneath but looking at the plastic support would have discovered the condition but for thirty years none of this happened looking at the floorboard or lifting up one would see if they're broken stepping on it is the way my plan actually got her unfortunately it isn't the question really whether he did get her from stepping on it because it appears that his testimony was that after he fell he noticed that there was a piece just positively prove whether or not stepping that he broke that piece of self or was already broken yeah i think that there's circumstantial question and here's why i think he has worked in that i don't know how many years he's had five t other guy from jamison bones were there for ten or twelve years walking on those simply walking on those doesn't break them apart something broken apart because he walked on countless times off and they don't break apart affect thirty years must have something else happened in that room my guy didn't do it because he didn't do anything other than stuffing you know if it broke apart it was broken apart now when they asked him if one looks at that testimony starts out with would you look after which if you look at any idea what it looked like well there were broken parts does it get to th recollection is it's a hard and i can't tell you if it was fake or light or not because this is not an order i went inspect it and there's no name i mean a fracture or anything else on it like that and it's a hard nonmetal feels like plastic it could very well be basically i don't know which exactly it is but the witnesses that's what your question comes from well o'donnell down nearly stepping on the floorboard would have this covered the condition because people had been stepping on it for thirty years and there was no evidence of stepping would this would have disclosed there was a problem that's why i think it was broken for thirty years i think it was it i think was not broken for thirteen hours i think when people are stepping up its table and the reason it tilted her cantilevered teeter totter to way to describe this because cases again and it cited to a case where it was either yogurt or ice cream on the floor and there was a little bit of a crossed around a lot of yogurt or ice cream in the courts like well reasonable minds could conclude that might have been there for a while and i don't think we have a yogurt fracture it was in cover it was in dust now you may say what does that exactly mean that's what's fact question if it's something that the jury is like that that does that we've all seen stuff that's old like under better something like that than there for a sufficient time but what i would suggest what i would say is it would be i think it would create a conflict if the court suggests or are rules that it cannot be a domino case because it is not a foreign substance on the floor  please the court i am here on behalf of engel's responding to this appeal and i think i'd like to start with the room at issue it is a small telecom room in the basement of eng and while there is a contract issue between ingles and siemens that existed as to who would operate and maintain the room that contract issue has absolutely nothing to do with the duty and notice that this case focuses on in order to heavy duty to inspect as i believe counsel just suggested we would have we would have to have notice of something to inspect we would not go into a room and i don't know if you saw the photos of where this floor was situated but it is in between two total hours and this floor runs between the two towers and underneath this floor are live wires so ingles would not have been in a position at any time to send random staff into this room to manipulate or touch the floor that it does not use for its business in providing medical care and that it would not be made as a getting out not those towers service t area or the condition needs to be related to the defense business transactions or how we deliver business clearly this had nothing to do with our hospitals health care or but like how did you know every single record in our house but all is contained on the computer everything jack does now goes to the computer how can you possibly say that the use of the computer is not related to the hospital business this this isn't bulk in here these are simply the wires that are for the system so far i have and i have a duty to inspect these types of things that are ancillary to our actual business we would need to notice that there was something wrong with her in that system we wouldn't simply inspect it once a day or once a week we wouldn't suspect our air quality in the hospital as a result of our intricate system unless we were given some reason some indication that that was required or that there was absolutely and then the second part of donohoe that entire line of cases only requires that it be part of our business which i submit it is not but the second line is that we had to place it there and not its meaning before but its meaning the dangerous condition itself that plaintiff would have to prove that the defense somehow contributed to the condition that we as a hospital system had created a bit he put the floor in well the plastic thirty years ago was put in as part of the building of these two towers right all right well i do not know what construction company or contractor actually placed before it was going to be directly after the one i'm certain it would have been done at the direction of the hospital but again it's not the war that needs to be that the defendant put there it condition needs to have been created in some way by the defendant facility and in this case that is the fatal flaw i think you've already picked up on but the fatal flaw here is there is absolutely not a woods judge flanagan did not say there was a duty to inspect directly what she indicated was she didn't focus on duty because she felt that there was absolutely no evidence that would link such a duty to causation and damages in this case she felt she didn't have to analyze the duty portion of this because she knew based on review of mr milewski his testimony and i think really the record could stop upon review of mr his own testimony on this issue he was on this for i just listen to counsel so you do need to inspect and it would have found had they walked out had they had they looked at it had they manipulated it they would have found found what this gentleman was i mean this warning he was walking he was observing that day the day before ten minutes prior to his fall he had walked across the exact same stretch of before so if we are to believe that an inspection would have revealed what there was nothing to reveal the man who was working on this for the man who was walking on it using it who understood its make up he didn't find and how he was in the underneath isn't that what he said well what he described was that the piece underneath rope which allowed the floor to sort of give in a way which allowed his able to roll and his need to hit so you can imagine that this person boring as all of these pedestals underneath the razor where the those had a stalls that is between the top of that plastic and the floor holding it above the wires that looks chipped or broken he actually said under direct examination a party admission do you know whether your flaw or condition existed ten minutes prior one minute prior what would we have found there was absolutely no evidence of what would or could have been found i also take issue with the idea and i think there's an entire was unwilling to accept the concept that that person never saw it gave no notice of it made no complaints had no idea it existed but then sued the owner for not knowing that it existed and the court said no we're not going to allow a person to pursue a claim like that and say i couldn't find it but you should have and i think that's exactly what we have here and i do think there's a lot of cases and the coca cola in that locker room scenario is directly on plaintiff failing this argument in mahler they decided that because the plaintiff had failed to present even a shred of circumstantial evidence they were not going to allow a jury to decide something where there was no question of fa where the harvey and in this case ingles there is no question of fact for a jury to decide in this case and judge flanagan rightfully i just want to focus very briefly before i conclude and perhaps image parts because we can not visit any of what we already have if we look just approximate cause in this case so negligence action and that's what we have here a purely play negligence action duty breach causation and damages and if if i read judge flanagan's opinion correctly when you look at proximate cause and causation in this case there is not and that is based not only on mr lives his testimony but the mechanism of his injury there is no evidence that ingles had any is lacking all evidence of causation and as a result regardless of duty and regardless of breech and i suggest you there is neither plaintive cannot prevail as a result of that testimony and the lack of evidence presented on that issue nothing furthe counsel pointed out a moment ago was well if that person is there walking their dog and they stepped in an old aggressive going over and the person didn't see it for they stepped on it they said well that person can see it now how is the homeowner or the condo associations with this entire outside walkway huge area and it couldn't be seen i guess unless walking around this today so that argument and if you make that to the jury that why would they be expected to see it when you could is a good point to make right and i think that a jury be well situated sam but there doesn't seem to be that whatever that's like it that's a the facts are so important as to whether or not the property owner's car was reasonable under the circumstances that's an unused bathroom and part of the warehouse and nobody went to and this was only millions tiles are on the floor of the of the warehouse here this is see something broken like kind of defeats the whole point of having the responsibility to make sure that the properties you check to make sure you check up before it's broken after after it broke or some reason you go fix it that's not really making your property it and they don't get a free bite at the out when i can't find a case that says there's no duty to inspect your property until someone gets hurt or until you know there's something wrong that's not at that but what it should be and when a property owner should look at how much they should look and what they should do depends on the place the location how often it's being used by whom it's being used by the people who are using it inspecting i think there was a case  of the duties is that they exercise reasonable care in meeting their property that would be the church i think it's a twenty one instruction i'm not positive and then i can make arguments about why it's not reasonable or why it is reasonable and then the jury can say they've that