not question certain facts as to whether the truth of it was really true in terms of what the camp what kind represented did terms of directing our clients to actually use the pol kidney evidence against the governmental entity that's a well known principle well accepted for many many decades and he failed to do that number four the facts must be construed most favorably to the point  should be accepted so that we can move on to discovery and trial there are a lot of cases that incited throughout the briefs i'm not going to you know introduce with that but the supreme court in bar listing three years ago wrote the definition and i'll just quote does not require the defendant government entity to know exactly when the injuries are going to happen or to witness it it's a conscious choice of the course of action the facts play here sho yes and what's really significant here is this isn't a matter of just the camp negligently maintaining their property or not having a proper inspection system you've got to look at all the facts  they not only had actual knowledge as evidence by their safety policy but what they did was as you know our client said we're looking at the camp to look use the hall for possibly the wedding reception that went down six months earlier before their injury they or that person do you know there is a sales job right this isn't free they're trying to sell their camp services so they say to our clients we're going to get married hey we're going to take you one of the designated campsites that you might want to come to when you have carol holes with i books and nails for obviously for holding something in a perfect spot to put your camper camping a hammock is a could among the polls they didn't say that they're interested in say they had a policy that you hang him or they didn't say anything sound on their website it's not assigned anywhere no notice to anyone it's just some policy that they have but they know knew it was unsafe  foreseeable than that happening these poles had been there at least forty two years since nine hundred and seventy five they've never been changed and in fact after the injury the one of the camp  man in terms of our a supreme court burden under bar the defendant in its brief and at the trial court spend a lot of time individually looking at certain facts well this fact isn't well for one this fact in the interests of time i'm just going to briefly address two other issues the defense has brought up which i think are complete red herring is one is where the plaintiffs intended users how can they say they're anything but intended users they told them to use the really they want the defense says well you know we had a policy they shouldn't use the polls so they're not intended users wife if they're not intended users not to put in obviously the defense surely didn't plead that or even argue server the other issue actual notice i've addressed this earlier but the actual notice again it's obvious based upon their safety policy that they had notice that these poles were dangerous and could not safely improperly hold a hammock or other appreciable weight what other reasonable inference is there for a policy prohibiting the use of hammocks and other things hanging from the pole which is expressed by the police officer on the day of the injury other than the fact that they knew the polls were and say these are reasonable inferences but they go beyond that there are very strong inferences that will obviously need to explore and detail in discovery so respectfully taking the totality of the facts putting them all together we submit that the trial court here the dismissing this case the early on based just on the pleadings say those five different facts of the now assists that that the trial court made mistakes on are very important individually i think they require reversal collectively they definitely require a reversal didn't take all fa it's all bundled up into the knowledge from the safety policy where it was not disseminated and also in light of that they actually told the point is to use a dangerous item on their property outgoing course of action is the knowledge of the safety policy the fact they didn't disseminate tellers of the planes for anybody else that i can gather and then they intentionally told someone we know this is unsafe to use the pol but you can use it for anything you want without restriction i mean that's an ongoing course of conduct over six months the st visit was six months before they got into europe they arrived six months later to further have a campsite you know  and then they also had police officers who failed to enforce the warnings and in fact told the children who had it's ok to ride out there so as you look at the british on that there isn't a difference and the officers in britain said yeah you know you're supposed to be there but it's ok go ahead because we are a force that here nation is not only was this employee are not going to force the action just not being utilized at all even though for whatever reason they're here is that there's a there's a reason for that policy in the event employees are saying yeah they don't like that or they don't want any knowledge to notice the suggestion that these campers might go off there and try to head hammocks on these poles i think were implying a certain amount of knowledge to the park district employee and whether or not they advised these campers of the alleged policy or safety policy not to change things on the polls how the district employees had no knowledge of their intake to go use those polls to hammond's or had no knowledge to suspect that they might hang she's disregard for the safety of others especially if you sue that there is this policy or the city policy in place where they are enacting some rules or standards for the protection of the see if you mother's if you  on our parts of the carcass of trees poles etc i don't think there's anything that it is that states that it was because of weight bearing issue safety issues etc and so to come back to use your question then i think the answer is again as i said earlier i think the idea that because you one campsite so that there were pools throughout this camp ground on various different kinds of ways and that one would fall at some other campground in some other time under what circumstances we don't know anyway whatever doesn't demonstrate a policy is some eighty situation where we don't know what it is and it's not speculation it's more than reasonable inference is a very strong for instance that's why the police officer was telling them that he's bragging a little bit you know you as you stated in ordinance is a public law we are also presume to know the puppet laws of who governs but we have a policy in a private entity that's not published anywhere it's internal anybody know what miss you tell us in the in the brief i said as an example might sound a little somebody put under their theory you could have a park with a baseball diamond and you could put a fence around it and you could have a public policy in your park district saying i only want certain people have it be able to play baseball but i'm not going to tell anybody about it and then as soon as someone else plays baseball and gets service a year intended user well it's a diamond it's in a park a policy they knew the potholes run say and the key factor here is it wasn't benign it was acute it was action you can use the polls for anything you want hold food so bears don't get it who knows but anything that's going to be on that pole shouldn't be there is unsafe and that's because it's their policy and that's because they have actual knowledge that it's unsafe to have anything on the polls and yet they tell their clients to use the polls for anything you want when you place a p t user camp site and we're going directly to that campsite and we got calls there for your use so i hope that you use our services and we make some money i but nobody else knew that right and then finally i just wanted to point out the fence counsel started talking about discovery i've never argued that we're here to try to get discovery hoover case i just stated at  pleadings stage i think the records very strong very clear the trial court made a mistake and by that mistake we never got a chance to go forward and i'm just asking for you to let us go for thank you