defendants were so intermingled by their own choosing those very difficult to establish or to determine while people were there working or thereafter where the right response certain responsibilities lied in where in fact the person responsible for the safety of the operation two people responsible for the safety operation were casey ashlie who ran it who was actually employed by riverside management of the facility and the direction of all the employees at the health and fitness center so isn't that isn't that the entity that is the employer at the time of the accident if there was an accident complaint and you didn't have it in your answers or responses to any of the motions for summary judgment stuff how real how do you how do we have jurisdiction to entertain that that theory up there while you are right i believe that there are there were two sets of allegations within the complaint which one of which is what i would suggest that the owner occupier but with which at which i believe said riverside whilst i had a duty provide a safe place for the what did they do that was unsafe  just some people unloading some chairs and a coworker according to you or your client stack some chairs up against a table and they were leaning against the table and explicitly they fell over backwards and hit your client now what what did the corporations here do that was negligent or if they failed to provide any safety training or a safe safe operation to avoid that from happening particularly sort particular in a situation where  when we when we operate is back with the saudis for profit that we will do saw a safe man she was she was compelled to be there she had no choice she had to she had to take whatever situation was there for her to do her job of the fact that that there supposed to train these folks she said she she's in a situation where she is roughly on the premises and her circumstances are such that that she has to do whatever she's doing she doesn't have a trace to not do it or do it  words any accident should have had a plan and that is not reasonably foreseeable so therefore you're not even considering the four factors yet it will respect us  from when she initially filed the complaint who are amended complaint so we don't know what actually occurred there your honor based based upon the testimony that has been that has been set forth in the depositions me what it is and where it is you riverside medical center d b a riverside health and fitness center they refer to as r h f c it's a bit though isn't that the correct reference point now that you're out again with all respect she works for a different you know i mean how do you know she was injured she's testified under oath that she has and that she was and and and there's testimony that she left a message i'm there on the machine for if he asked one if he asked one had indicated that she received she received a message on her on her machine and there's there's medical records that show the immediately following she doesn't give the history that she that she was injured while i work my stack the chair star i mean i don't know what she has to do other than than facility she had to encounter the situation how do you reconcile that with the more versus shorthand form to r h f c that reference is to riverside health fitness center ok it is the d b a for the health club here where the accident took place it is not a legal the d b a the riverside health fitness center is for oversight corporation the entity that it owns the health club here in this case ok riverside medical  oversight and also several other entities including a hospital and i believe a senior living facility so riverside medical center is the parent corporation for three different entities including oversight and it is  accountable and responsible for the supervision and creating a program for safety well the council's arguing that everybody that he has sense things that could could harm them the tape folding chairs in this case or set out against the side of the table as plaintiff herself testified her deposition they were only there for a couple of minutes and then they suddenly and inexplicably slip backwards and landed at her foot now whether or not there is an overall safety program for the operations of the bank but it's really doesn't apply here because what we're talking about are simply chairs and this could have been a meeting at a it didn't have to do anything with the banquet in particular she could have been setting up these chairs for employees meeting in the room or for any now we would say that most of the market it is his emphasis is misplaced especially marshall versus burger king we believe that that is misinterpret organization where the brunette is involved here is not open to the public at the time as we have with burger king case where the part comes into the restaurant which is at the time open to the public and that the person who was killed  and she was setting out the chairs for their purpose and so we would argue that the hills out of scuse me that marshall versus burger king has been misapplied by the plaintiffs here because you can't just simply say that there is some sort of made in our brief and as you point out clay have never played it never raised it in response to two motions for summary judgment and she never asked for any opportunity to amend her complaint to have that end after losing notice it must have reason to know that the employee needed some sort of special training and again i come back to the nature of the accident here exempted heard it all involve folding chairs a foot backwards and landed on her foot common sense dictates of the chairs that were sitting there for only a couple of minutes just as house as you pointed out more versus hiccup who we think from the fourth district definitively says that a stack of folding chairs in place  point do we require employers to have a safety program covers every single minute aspect of a player's job finally the consequences of the burden they are placed upon the defendants in and again my client riverside whole system ohm's oversight in addition my client riverside health system is the parent company of riverside medical center riverside the center has no connection i think that i wrote down something the plaintiff's counsel said a number of times it was the defendant that created the condition well we have a lot of things here so that's where the big question which of the eleven are is being referred to with respect to my three foreseeability and the duty issues of my clients none of them i hired misread or employed her my clients none of them tracked it with any of the other earnings that hired mis read or whatever my clients could not hold any of the partners they had hired ms redmond or or or none of my clients or business invite doors with respect to the center my clients are in no position to the unloading of metal chairs or to hire those that were responsible for unloading metal chairs my clients have no connection to the work that was being performed in but not perceive the alleged injury none of person who one night really was employed by lakeshore medical fitness one of the defendants here and she was the one who undeniably has said that she was responsible for the steps and safety of safety program this counsel just pointed out i think some of the problems come with the way these captions have been ended up on the briefs and on some of the pleadings here the first one you're with your opening brief you know your first defendant is riverside medical the original case was filed and when and when this truck was set forth of no quite frankly i have and i and i challenge the defendants to really know what the corporate structure of this was we didn't know what the corporate structure of this the apple lease griefs and and two of them i think serve to clarify a good deal of the problems we've been having as to who the proper entity sarah here well that's been clarified some work today as well representative and clearly employed at riverside medical center was the person who had direct supervisory control over and i don't mean my client mr redmond but all other people that were working at riverside michael's or were working for the health club that's undeniable defendants has indicated testified that she is the person who is directly responsible for for maintaining the safety program and making the safety the problems those are different those are different entities but they both ha a construction site for instance that a child would know how to do or or or that anybody should know how to do but they need to say deprogramming somebody making sure that it's done in an orderly fashion so let a situation where there is a pressure situation there are only two people and not six or eight like there should have been and f and one of the mess up in first to do things that she otherwise wasn't supposed to do under one of those circumstances yes there is a duty yes it is foreseeable and and and one that this particular injury occurred in this particular wreck in fact if the supreme court does it it has gone against that thinking and saying that if there has to be a torker already provide a safe place that these things don't happen least there is foreseeability that there's not a safety program if there are inadequate staffing to do something in a shorter period of time and then there's time enough to do yes there's perceivable that something is going to happen whether it be the chairs point over whether it if management l l c i was given these responsibilities if actively manage and supervise the employees with all respect and you didn't sue them did you i'm sorry you did not suit that i lessen the burden and defend the magnitude of the approach of guarding against the interest simply having a sitter or enforcing adding a safety program certainly that's not a burden anybody has ever has any any corporate entity should have a safety program