on the other hand gordon testified that even in the summer the water would run on to the sidewalk this was something that was apparent i realize it's disputed but in the way that you noticed when he didn't tell anyone about i would get notice she saw it in the summer they knew i mean when i eat it back that he knew about it is that noticed must be disclosed to the parties so how did he ever get by that he did not explicitly there and any time well there was definitely testimony that i formed there on the day that he slipped and fell that was disputed but what i saw from what it has to be an unnatural humiliation with his hands he could feel the ice sure he slipped up and it was in exactly the same spot where he had seen the water run off before are you saying that that's actually a step that he said that  there were multiple witnesses that had seen that exact thing before and that so there was evidence that was still there well the evidence of notice was that i don't i'm not one of the witnesses was like our home board i'm not certain that well i don't see any allegation in there that he did and that was part of the reason that it was the least part of the reason that the board rejected you know your response seen water running exactly where that ice formed in the summer at least once and he said he believed more than one occasion and some of the some of the evidence came from the defense i mean they made an effort to show that that mcgill's obligation to trouble the walks was never triggered and they submitted to weather reports that well again in murphy holden bank rectory if i'm walking but i don't think anybody said that they notified the owner of their building or on the day that it happened something you can see with your own eyes and  everybody can see with their eyes and then or by the president of the so see when the incident happened number you know i'm not certain if they gave her explicit notice but just like their case president president  to go and plow under their professional loan you know all right ok so you do consider so we were at least sure now that there were two inches of snow that needed to be reading everything together how do you how do you argue that clearing or making sure that the mail boxes are clear trumps the duty of the two inches or the extra what does that mean does it mean that even if there's not two inches of snow the plowing company has to come out that is correct around and how would they be know that they undertook this is their all times as part of this contract is the controlling language here to babysit you just that you are it was in the well the defendant's argue that the other clause controls and we've got two conflicting as well that we have to read them all together my question is reading them all together question to you is that how do we get to a notification what in the contract would suggest that and says we show up under certain conditions the other hand it serves we're going to do this always so you're reading things though into what this means that it means they have a duty to come out every and all times they should basically be sitting there and waiting to do something just in case as opposed to the contract that says whenever there's more than two inches they don't have to get caught they have to go they're required when there's more than two inches of accumulation to go out to the location they were in charge of the maintenance of this so it is not at all uncommon for me an that they have an obligation or it said based on everything that was in front of it that the duty to keep it free was the final there was a question material that under these under these circumstances but it wasn't ok well i understand you're saying it wasn't that you'd have to be able to show it wasn't excessive all due to an unnatural accumulation  even if they don't have two inches and the end of the language is at all times that's not qualified that's a very specific thing they have a duty when there is more than two inches to make certain that people can more than two inches they plow if there's if salt is requested they will salt but this clause which is in a different part of the contract they're there would you say this is any different than the usual all times as part of the contract ok so what is there doing the duty is to make sure that people can get to their mailbox ok now are we throwing out the unnaturally cumulation of ice or do they have a duty to actually make accumulation of snow and ice it would be covered by a different rule that would be covered by the snow and ice removal act and that would present a problem and recovery depending on the facts ok but as you hear restructured true but even that would be a natural accumulation yes tilman happening today with regard to that anyway even if it came from water that created this little i mean we have no idea even how big the ice was could have been had come from the roof melt off roof i went to the gutters and then down is down and have to then go travel over a concrete plan or so i thought if you get in the door and then it had to go over at least ten to fifteen feet into the door a downspout from the ground comes down into it like a little garden area where there were plants from there it may flow over that approach sidewalk but that's a private argue that the complaint was active in terms of any suggestion that there was an allegation i defect i don't think that we raised the lack of any allegation  well it's not your absolutely correct and the fact is not an issue raised in pleadings so he's trying to get outside of that i guess as an alternative our position as even if you do consider whether there was a defect there is no evidence placed effectively it did what it was supposed to do it's supposed to drain water off the rough it was supposed to drain it over the grass that's what cities and codes require now they don't like it to go underneath the ground into the so words they want to disperse over the ground and so what essentially he's asking us to do is to violate the code remember spec and put it underground so that it never flows over the grass which is but it's designed to white how do you  actual verses on natural cumulation even if you look at the facts here it is distinguished on so many levels because they had at least three witnesses that talked about repeated melting an accumulation where it goes into the story so that's exactly what the code requires and when supposed to but here there is no evidence of this ever happened in the winter there's no evidence that any snow accumulat to such a degree on the roofs and then it melted in enough volume and quickly enough for it to flow out of the downspout while the weather's freezing by the way insufficient volumes gallons and not just that she didn't see ice and sidewalks she specifically said i never saw that kind of water flow even in the summertime i never saw any problem with gutters downspouts water flowing and there is no evidence in the record anywhere else that anybody ever advised the association in any way that if it happens even in the summer so if it if there's no notice of the summer there's certainly no notice of the winter because there's no evidence it ever happened in the winter know on the sidewalk on the sidewalk itself as i say from the photographs of these fifty away from the downspout so the mailbox probably at least thirty forty feet away from the downspout and it wasn't in line with th it was a couple doors down so it's not in line with the mailbox at all and that goes to the i only want to address the contract in two ways one is we don't have any future move natural accumulations and the and it does get to the mailbox mailbox was accessible at all times that they have provision it is we're not going to pile of snow and cover the fire hydrants or the mail they're done plowing and we all recognize there will be still a skim coating of ice there yes it's in the yeah that's in the contract so his interpretation is not just in conflict it would require the  ignore three entire paragraphs and that's directly contrary to the rules of interpretation contract so he what he's doing is asking the court to excess ability means that there will be me there's zero evidence in the record to indicate any kind of will for one conduct and as such there is no liability on the part of the guilt of the plaintiff here further as it relates to the issue of notice are notice is limited to that which is we received from one stone in circumstances where there is under two inches of snow they have to call us out if they want some work provided on the premises  enough evidence to support the natural humiliation finding but even if there is there is not the requisite notice to put a duty on the kill in this particular instance there's no evidence with regard to establish constructive notice with regard therefore any kind of applicability of that clause would be in the context of snowplowing work  limit to to an extent he's trying to extend the definition of accessibility to anyone on the premises that has an attempt to walk toward a mill box that is his essentially his definition of  and further that's again the record just a void of any kind of evidence that would indicate a duty on mcdill for removing any kind of natural accumulation and further the record is devoid of any kind of evidence that the difference between murphy hilton and allen is the difference between an identified cause of a fall with an inference as to what caused the condition in france as to what cost the call cost the fall the inference as to what caused the condition here in one of the briefs the defendant say ridiculed gordon for relying on the laws of physics but that's exactly what applies here sheep rises in a building it will now it's snow on a roof even when it's above below freezing and the defendants themselves acknowledge that this day there was a period of freezing so of physics say that the water is going to run down this downspout is it is anybody is there anything in the record that you're talking about now melting rising i mean it's it's important it's what we have to be in the record well gordon did testify that the laws of physics for instance dictate that making a big deal out of the fact that well because water ran over that lawn in summer that doesn't mean it runs in winter but frozen soil is less forest than unfrozen soil and those are law only qualified by the other conditions stated in a separate section of the contract and that language is unqualified all the fire hydrants and mailboxes will be kept accessible at all times as part of this contr