unit during the course of that roofing work storm blew up the roofing workers did not properly close up the roof and so there was when the rain hit it flooded  eviction the negligence count was focused on the brain event itself so i'd like to start with that and that has caused some some i think unnecessary and in terms of where the negligence lies we have identified that and the allegations are of our complaint are that these workers improperly covered the the roof and and did so negligently and that those that th an independent contractor and that westbrook cannot be liable for independent contractors negligence and we have cited throughout including in fact a reference to it in our point section four twenty seven of the restatements  towards which we think lies directly to this situation it doesn't you don't necessarily need to refer to that restatement section itself though because the illinois law dating back into the eighty's hundreds dangerous inherent danger about it some something about it but poses a risk or special danger to others then the the owner of the principal cannot escape liability simply i have not been able to get past that hurdle though i believe we have our sound totally exactly the church i'm sorry the hurdle that it has to have something inherently dangerous to us as well i think then doesn't seem to be something that anyone has really challenge of deep the trial judge for instance ruled at the point that here it was pretty clear that everyone knew this storm was coming up and everybody knew that if they didn't get the roof covered that could cause some serious problems in there was asked some have a dance that he and i don't know if you want to call the person the soup or the manager or whatever someone talk to and work with the roofing company and trying to prepare for that and that there were some actions taken to try to address that i understand that and i agree with that that was evidence that was introduced but taking these elements wanted to time so the special danger to others i think is clearly bad because they were all trying to address that special danger and the reason was that there were two hour special danger to find well i'm not sure i know of any cases that specifically defined it but certainly  by looking at the cases it appears that it's a risk that's common poor whatever the is the type of work is that it's something new that will happen if you don't take care for instance in the case the court was pretty clear that look we all know that if you're using a hair spray or to spray paint that they're going to have paint splatter and you're going to have over here so that's not that's an inherent danger in doing that kind of work and so the owner has to take some precautions or make sure that the contractor takes reasonable cautions in addressing that or to avoid it and actually what the restatement says is the owner is subject to liability for physically harm physical harm caused to such others by the contractors failure to take reasonable precautions against such a and hardly looking at work then when you're engaging in it that it might have been  the probable consequence of the work that's being done and so do you think you meet that here well i probable consequences i guess is some words that the west purpose has highlighted in  some of their well that's out of the national right it is that's that's part of what the finnish said but we also have you know other other phrases and the general ruling in the three statement itself does not say probable concept of liable for damage to her property and she was required to take the necessary steps to ensure her property or something along those lines and in your honor those those pleadings and those discussions was made that to the extent that pat was an attempt to avoid their own negligence that that is a bar that contract provision is barred by the by the  i guess yes there was that that provision but i don't think it was a political in this situation that it can leave the landlord from their own negligence and in this case under the national ban arkan of the section four twenty seven property damage but it's not you know and it's something that doesn't have to happen if you put up the correct you know covering something like that but it is an inherent danger if if those precautions are not taken and this seems very logical that if you're spray painting you have to protect against matter here you're roughing and there happens to be a storm coming along isn't that different i don't believe so  know it seems to me if your roof isn't covered then it doesn't have a covering on it by definition everything is exposed to whatever may come from that store we have for one thing dormant to cover everything to keep it from happening now what happened let me ask you this talk about the restatement aren't we dealing with a failure to take reasonable precautions and didn't we have reasonable precautions taken here specifically if you enter the work gate taber negligently failed to cover or otherwise secure the open but it appears that the evidence is that they did come from they just didn't do a very good job a reasonable person would be something well i mean don't we also have information that they have utilized this method before with success apparently but you know again they had admitted to this negligence so i go up there and and he didn't expect so we don't really know what it was but there was admission that it was done negligent if we hadn't had that admission there might have been a different trial but but you know we did have that mission so we know that whatever they did up there  you did mention the woodward case and that i guess moves into a different argument that both whisper has has made in the trial judge at least addressed and that is the suggestion that this was  cited the courts have said well you know this particular danger is just a natural part of the work to do van ark and they were right there believe them demolishing a building well things are going to fall when the building has been demolished so you need to take steps national scenario if the spray painter had failed to maintain his painting machine and it backed up and blown up this ladder paid over in that way let's collateral that's his name which it said that's  something you would normally expect in that kind of work for the you know the roofing i was trying to come up with an example when i guess what i would suggest is that if for instance the the roofers had a piece of equipment on the roof that short circuit due to their failure to maintain and make hostile fire well that you know that is their negligence not the negligence that's inherent in the in the work of doing the proof and i think that's the distinguishment with respect to the collateral negligence issue to it is constructive or not it certainly was not lawful there was never a five day notice given to her there was never any real process in fact after she was in and again there was another admission that you after the you have case song where with a constructive fiction there was no warrant for property damage we usually were talking about with constructive eviction you know you don't have to pay the rent or she had to move and pay rent somewhere else we compensate you for that paid for property damage well again your honor i think the distinction is not between constructivist just the description of how the direction was effectually out of their property or keeping someone from their property can result in those types of damages owed you file a trespass fine but i believe that's what the unlawful addiction essentially is  damages incurred trespassing between you or tell me the specific damages that were awarded in these cases that you're referring to me are we talking about branch or are we talking about having to stay somewhere else and being compensated for that reason i know there was the one case where they were in not a trailer park but an r v park so to speak and there is this issue you cited where we're talking about property damages for unlawful constructive you bitch and you're probably right your honor directly on those points that are good cases probably because you know th the cases do speak that i have cited to speak generally about the availability of the damages in my it's like any again i would distinguish between a tort cause of action vs a contract cause of action  calculate damages on that basis but work said that those should be available again the the order simply said that she wasn't title any law i'm sorry counsel you're out of time but you have to ditch the time or battle thank you she couldn't tell the twenty six and they put her in a hotel for which is kind of disputed exactly how long that was that it was reported by sounds to be four or five days and so she basically had the majority of the month of may not the entire month of may were either she was in the apartment or in the hotel i know that there were a couple days she stayed with her daughter but does that sound right yes so there were there there may have been a day or two either the end of may perhaps the beginning of june she stayed with her daughter but until until the rains came she was in her apartment and then she was in a hotel for f pay so technically wrong practically correct turning to the claim for the and the restatement section four twenty seven the first question is whether four twenty seven applies and the second your hours earlier question for twenty seven pegs a finding of an inherent danger of a special danger inherent in the normal to the work at the time of the execution of the contract paint blows things fall off buildings with your turn down but a fire from a cutting torch is not a special danger inherent to the nature of the work a rain happening on the day that you're referring has not the special be injured inherent to the nature of the work contemplated at the time of the execution of the contract it may be that morning when you hear the weather forecast but not of the time  about that the this remand is talked about in this case is the negligence of tabor at the time they put the tarp on the ro that's the negligence of taper not the negligence of westbrook and it can't be attributed to the negligence was in the nature of the way they did the work not the failure of westbrook to require that those normal didn't negligent negligently on the day of the of the rain it's simply an admission that in retrospect they didn't do it right was that the damages from the pain were foreseeable at the time the contract was entered and importantly no steps were taken to prohibit reduce stop that damage from from taking place obviously not the case here i'm not sure at all that this is a case in which section four point seven  but if it was you heard my question and now putting out a tip reasonable steps are reasonable precautions so if it doesn't sound good they did they do that i think they did everything they reasonably could road that the counterplay the terms the allegations the counterclaim itself and and and and this record keeps talking about this was this was back in zero six following a tornado coming through southwest springfield were these apartments are located and six to three fields a city your blue tarps for sometime following following those events covering a roof with a tarp when there's a problem with the road there's an ordinary means of protecting that property from from further damage and that's what mr dorman made sure that  he make sure that they put a tarp up to protect against further damages what he did not do and what judge is going to specifically found he did not have  and out a legal obligation to do was to climb up on the roof and inspect with you what had been done he's not a roof he's an apartment you reasonably relied on on tabor two to do that work and and that's what what for twenty seven if that if it applies that's what for twenty seven requires and he did  some of the very first words out of his argument to this court today referenced the day the rain came through and my clients think if the rain was responsible for the damages to his client's personal property those are damaged jews then arising from a constructive eviction those are damages caused likely genes which is not attributable to my car that's the first problem with this game because the second problem with his damages argument is we have this well diminish the ngs we all suffer when things in the basement or apartments or whatever get flooded and personal property is lost but what's the financial damages what's what's the economic damage there was and she lumped  twenty five thousand dollars what's the source of that twenty five thousand dollars there was talk of a relatively new t v when was upon the paper to be some of the some of these things can be can be articulated some of them can't be but to simply lump everything in into into one thing and call it twenty five thousand dollars is is simply not convinced  of bond versus long as a commercial lease of involved was a profit from them being kicked out of the property for a period of time and the other cases that were cited are nuisance and trespass cases which were not played in this case this case was played as a construction eviction constructive eviction turning to the issue of of emotional damages which are tied both to  after the it but to proved damages either on the constructive action claiming those damages or are going to be allowed in the states which they should  in the intentional infliction case the requirement in the that the element of the cause of action and of intentional infliction the severe extreme emotional distress caused by defendant's bad actions caused by defendant's extreme and and outrageous but again i'm sure that it was between images and and the behavior which is that which is the cause of action  mr craven let me ask you to repeat something you say response to justice hope's question about the trial court already that read it even though that claim had been dropped you say tell me you can do what you said you think the proper the calculation was that the award of damages is his rent paid for which you then don't but you then don't get the benefit of that rent being paid because you've been evicted constructively from the from the apartment but in this case since the rent wasn't paid damages christlike to say that to the extent that mr craven's arguments on damages veered into the portions of the response briefs that was stricken by this court's order as not being properly for this court because there was  phrases the the rule as somehow well first off to the extent that he suggests that the the time that we consider is that the time making the contract i think that's probably correct it has to be foreseeable injury or foreseeable part of the work in question that at the time whether it's part of the contract or not the contracting parties have to have at least some of the even though that's an issue i certainly take exception to the suggestion though that when  when a anyone but it's a homeowner or commercial enterprise like westboro hires roofers to come and do a multimillion job of putting roof roofing on on facilities that they don't contemplate that at some point in that process it's not just going to be all twenty four hours a day seven days a week you know crews are going to go off work over the weekend we're going to have rain events all sorts of things are going to happen and the group is going to have to get covered to make statements all acknowledge that you know we all know that when it's raining and the roof isn't covered the rain's going to get into the building so that is certainly a danger that's inherent with the roofing process another suggestion or another  think place where mr craven's understanding of the rule for twenty seven is incorrect as he seems to suggest that there must be some sort of independent negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the of the owner a an expert in roofing himself so he stood on the ground it looked like what they're supposed to be doing he didn't go check and if he had it might not have made any difference anyway so therefore westbrook did all that westbrook good and therefore isn't contractor you know is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others in people that are reasonably foreseeable ie armed by the by the wrong by the contractor's failure so any reasonable guys that have the most training and that i train them every day in the morning before they go out to work to be to not be negligent i watched them leave the the facility is to go back to do my work out so let me stop you that when we talk about reasonable  cautions against such danger it seems to me you one has to read that to say to prevent any sense of danger he doesn't see that this is to take reasonable precautions and i do recognize that and that's where i think it's a margin that well