again the court held in the jury could find that the business dealt exercised ordinary care to maintain the premises by going to screw the map that's a defect now the fit argues the condition of the map well by saying that notice by the a trial court creates an element that is not in the act of god and it actually overturns when behind being were asking the notice not be par business to exercise ordinary care or reason care for known as well as those conditions which could have been known so the actual notice was not necessary they also point out that you can't shift the burden to the gas inspect and in the blue first think they're counting the table in umbrella that had never injured anybody in the past so the fact that there was no prior accident is not a defense in this case there's no dispute the defendant placed the mat on the ground there's no dispute that it was not secured there's no sophist view that it was subject to when conditions and it is a red herring that mad that the mat has never blown up before they can't prove  all they can prove is that no one has ever complained about before in fact there is some evidence that that it has gone up in force miles upon with regards to a woman that had spoke to the plaintiff and there's some evidence in the file that she my client tried to find her but there is some evidence that it could have happened but there's no evidence that it's never happened you can't prove a negative in this situation next act of god since cannot apply because there's a human element to the cannot be prevented by human care skill horse like this case could have been prevented by human care skilled foresight by securing the map so the jury could find that a reasonable person would expect  it should be a question the fact that whether a win is a first seeable event that could cause a match to left up off the ground of an interest of a building that's exposed to weather and so i can trip on that should be a there was no knowledge of any prior incidents or injuries involving this map to defendant no defects or damage in the man no incidents no prior complaints no reports and no issues with the manson there is no evidence of defendants committed any act she stepped out on top and was walking on it she described it as being blown up and wrapping wrapping around and wrestling her to the ground so that it laying in place for five to six years prior to this event laying never harm looking back in hindsight would they be responsible for that and based on facts and evidence that was presented there was no reason to suspect that the man needed to be secured to the concrete it was therefore this event was not forseeable and from a premise liability standpoint of land possesses or land may be liable under certain circumstances provided that they are able to unreasonable risk of harm the met posed no danger and i know that they cite to wapping case of about the fact that in that case they had the pylon which was more of a design of construction the fact th was above an archway going into the grocery store and that's a choice of the public would not discover would not it where because the that condition was thirty eight feet and there nope no possibility no opportunity for the public to discover any defect in this case plaintiff alone was walking in and out and in the course of the year walked across that mad at least four hundred fifty times without incident and that's just in  big question becomes whether or not that's a question for the jury is whether or not the failure to secure he's saying that the failure to secure the man is a  there is no defect in the man he's relying on the fact that in the case of the high he case is that they found that failing to secure the map because it was a defect in that case there was plenty of issues with the poor condition poorly maintained edges were curled up they were torn to read they had complaints about they secured the only reason they were securing it was because there were complaints that when people stepped on it the mats w edges of corners in order to secure the map and again they had incidents of people want to cross the map moving and sliding and people tripping that doesn't exist in this case this man is length flat and as far as with the other cases as far as when it comes to there is so as far as there is no evidence presented that and plaintiff can't show that defendants had knowledge of the condition of the poor condition they had planes husband complaining two to three times they had a witness who complained about managers testifying employees testifying that they knew that the matthews had to  and so they had knowledge and it was forseeable that under those conditions in the reports of the witness a witness and plaintiff husband the evidence was there that this isn't that type somebody's tripping and falling situation normal occurrence it didn't matter what type when there was testimony and evidence that it would blow over it was a regular occurrence the fact that nobody was injured before didn't prevent didn't prevent them from finding the country club or had knowledge that this would blow over it was a regular occurrence didn't matter what type of wind it was so they were they had knowledge that these type these umbrellas would not stay would not secure they'd be tripping over the tables were turned over and somebody being injured was forseeable to that in this case what we have is we have a map that lay flat on the ground her to the ground as far as from the defense that you know defendant had no knowledge of any prior trips walls actions of any kind and there's no reason to suspect that a man laying flat on the it did not work as long as the date the business put the map there that is unsecured it goes to the jury doesn't it's without requiring proof that the defense had actual orchestra active knowledge