there bring it into the specific really than the general so that there's factual issues surely start with the contract absolute because the case was pointed out that's where we begin now to begin the analysis in this case we beginning contract that a general has with the owner imposes on the general the obligation for all the means and methods for all the traits that are going to be on the site for compliance with safety for every single  contract and then the general turns around and enters into some contracts with the trades and says you're responsible for the work you're going to do as the concrete answer that ironworker th carpentry or whatever and your responsible for the safety of your employees on the site that what these contracts said and respect we know your honor that's not what these contracts say and i would just back up as to the premise of the question i just want to be on the record i don't agree with the premise and that is a go and it's been the case law by sake outlook that are clear that the contract between the owner of the general contractor such as the one in this context kaka context appear to be a general right is rather a point out however in this case we have well more than those two cases here and that's the sub contract in our sub contract we have a clear and definitive retention of the right of control and in the sub contract it's clear that the general contractor says th sub contractor the sub contractor quote shell comply with all the stations of the contractor relative the safety and what that's right the subculture agreement that the subcontractor reached furthermore in the sub contract agreement which is not in any of those other cases that we're discussing  it in it says well in order to provide safety controls the sub contractor will take such additional measures as the contractor may determine to be reasonably necessary and so i understand th that sony each sub has its own employees on site doing their part of the work and the general sat is you that comply with my safety it requires under the law the general contractor to exercise reasonable care reasonable care now what is reasonable care i would argue that that's what the jury decides so in other words does the does this is the general contract required to look over the shoulder of every contract necessarily i mean if you look because if if the retention of control over safety which every general is enough to say were they reasonable when they exercise their control that would be a question fact in every case well i believe you're on a reasonable is a question of fact however there are certain cases and that the record is complete with them where reasonable this is not a question that where there is no question that the contractor had no ability to ever see the unsafe condition or be aware of it and therefore their conduct could not be unreasonable but they for fourteen presupposes that if safety is the area of control saying that you agree with the premise that you have to have notice or is it no or should have known i would argue technically i do not agree with that premises however there is that in the work where he says should have known of the unsafe condition i've seen those ok just in the record they're black and white did you file those at all or pictures that you're holding in front of you with the court these are from the record i don't put these up there that the electronic record has black and white versions white these pictures but if you want us to look at color photographs you have to provide them ok and let's let's be fair we think that there are that a rule has been proposed here that if there are color pictures produced in court and introduced into the court that its attorneys to make sure that those same color pictures get to us but i must tell you that i can't verify that this minute so in a way i don't want to sand big you and say oh you should have filed as color pictures because there may actually not be a rule that you do that and so you may not have been aware of that but the fact is what we have seen is not color pictures where you introduce i do and there's no not one single color printer in this quarter that's me and again they get electricity back or shows up in black and white that's all i'm telling you that may not be your fault because we may not actually have a general rule that says you have to provide a supplemental record with the color pictures so but right now we're telling us you can't argue about color pictures because we've never seen color pictures so that's an issue if you're going to have to overcome a different question or my colleague is pointed out that you know every case should go to a  jury frankly i'm not sure that that's a bad result but on the other hand i don't think that every case would go to a jury my real question is what's point of being a general contractor responsible for what's going on in the work site if you're going to be able to say oh it's not my job it's not my job it's not my job to worry about safety well that's the ultimate concern we have as we look at the general contractor rather the general contractor does in this country except certain responsibilities but it argues that promises to be responsible for it gets to not only inspector safety conditions and excellence but also without talking about politics just like my pictures i got the feeling that the rebar on the top was stacked correctly and it was the rebar on the bottom that was a mouse and that even if you if you looked at the stack of rebar you wouldn't necessarily known that the bottom was a mess so is there any testified to was that at the time of his injury he was trying to get other bars that were hidden underneath that's what he said right because the did not your honor that if you really if we carefully look at the testimony what he actually testified to was the piece that he was trying to get was hidden underneath why because of the jumbled mess because he's looking for particular sizes and lengths of rebar that are not stacked proper somebody offload and the general contractor says to someone hey if that off the truck we've got to get the truck out here whose job is it to make sure that the that the river gets off to talk and stick safely this chicago town's job to take the rebar off the truck is it the general contractors fights ability to say to those guys and make sure you do it right it's the subcontractors responsible it's do the physical labor and the general contractors responsibility admitted responsibility to make sure it's done correctly and safely and if it's not done safely he says that his job is all you need so what's the part though and yes he's then tell me where that evidence is that anybody from excavation right now because it was unsafe they had it they delivered it what it and one part of their property there was going to be excavation work that they had to move it for so they said because the excavators are coming  decision hey we got to get this this pile moved because we have some excavation coming in so it's hard to town move that pile move it over there so chicago don't follow that route direction of instruction which is why this is not a general right it's a specific right of the defendant the contractor so he admitted he made admissions in the record that his responsibility is to inspect the site daily i know in the morning which is a morning walk through but throughout the day for unsafe conditions or unsafe work activit so he admitted it was his responsibility that inspection i think that's an admission going around where the evidence is that he knew or should have known of this condition you say ask your client's injury well a reasonable jury could certainly conclude that he knew because he basis his job is to look for potential unsafe conditions i could injure workers he said that he's aware that a tangled mess of rebar would be an unsafe condition and if you saw that he should have done something about it now reasonable jury could conclude that he certainly should have known about it he testified that it wasn't a very large job site he was very familiar with the site itself he's on the site exclusively he superintending the site himself on a daily basis and talking to me let me pose a little different hypothetical for you because the safety manual says you shouldn't try and lift anything heavy while you're standing on a wet surface right mostly correct it might slip so it rained the night before and when mr foley shows up you're saying is if it's slippery it's they're trying to go out there and inspect and say don't lift this is a slippery surface if it's an unsafe condition and the general contractor has the general contractors the obligation to prevent work from being gone in a dangerous manner that's what for fourteen it's us and this would be very similar good general contractor saying to any subcontractor hey listen this is happening today there's going to be some different kind of supposed to say to the sub contractors here's what here's what you can do to day or in the alternative don't do that today because bob so if it rained and one of the rule says you're not supposed to be moving we are one and slippery the general contractor could be it is a question of fact why the general contractor should have said to the people who move in the river you know we know we have to get this done you know we have to get it done today let's see if we can't figure out some way to do it that's not going to cause an unsafe condition i agree your honor and sub contractors are always going to physically perform the labor that's why subcontractors are hired to physically perform the labor but general contractors are there for a reason to they're performing a service that service is safety and inspection and supervision of the work so although sub contractors are are always supposed to do their work in a workman like manner see if they don't because they're there to do a job and sometimes they just work sometimes they'll work in the unsafe conditions sometimes they work in the slippery conditions that's where the superintendent's control comes in right and so that makes the superintendent and us the general the insurer of the safety of the workplace everything every worker every potential safety hazard if somebody doesn't follow the safety me home they're strictly liable i completely disagree and it's fair it's interesting that the current the st talk but they mention well this is considering if this because they have a safety manual does that mean there is in strict liability for any injury that occurs and the answer is absolutely no there's no strict liability the restatements says they have to exercise their control with reasonable care right no be proximate cause are all generally questions of fact which doesn't say in any particular case that summary judgment is inappropriate oh no summary judgment can be appropriate if there is no evidence at all in the several days and they have reason and that's a question for the jury to decide it isn't a question for the jury to decide a jury can look at this case and say look ok i was there every day for six straight days he's a power has been able to use those it's been moved by hand up by a machine he has the ability to see what's in the pictures that it's not there's no cribbing underneath it it's not an os flat ground it's tangled new you're saying that it is the pictures are very important because they show the condition of the stick well the pictures do show no i'm just saying back tell me that so those pictures are important to show what the condition was and that he should have have been doing well number one i think that's a good question of fact i can answer that question i think the answer that question is is that instead of looking for the specific piece of he needed to do his work and to bring it over to the work site to put into the hole and to tie it together he would be now just taking one piece of rebar off at a time putting into a different pile and completely changing a pile he wouldn't need to find the right  and booker knows that booker testified about that so for him to pick give a blind eye to this tangled mess of rebar and say well nobody told me it was unsafe therefore there's nothing i did wrong it's like saying saying that  driver who doesn't see the red light but i didn't see why the beauty to stop a neg hit you to rule that can't be the rule in this type in this case that can't be the rule in this factual situation we the general contractor when they agree to perform s shows up in the morning everybody's got hard hats and safety vests and he leaves few of those workers take them off somebody gets hit on the head with a piece of rebar and he's subcontractor took off as hard or should the general contractor have known that these workers always take off their targets and if he knows they always take off her hat and he should know to be more have more supervision on that site or if he couldn't to possibly know because between the time the guy took office her head and the time of the incident was thirty seconds and it there during that nd this three hours to come we came in the morning surveyed the works site everything looks safe and goes back to this office across the street where he spends a lot of time because he's coordinating all the other aspects of the project and in those three hours people take on things that are around people take off the hard hats and safety that somebody gets injured that's got to go to widgery yes you definitely because that is a question then for a jury to decide did in this particular general contractor supervise that work with reasonable care that they control the work with reasonable care is it reasonable for that general contractor to be out in the now i don't feel for three be followed or to generally stop and start work but it's control that relates to it so patrick is not entirely free to do the work in their own way and the record is replete with information that says the general contractor  order that was given by the general country pursuant to the caucus a contract itself is right in there ever since the admissions of the testimony by mr bowker and mr chapman and mr foley as well therefore their control has been proved no testimony that he actually went and saw those in fact all of us have this direction that the rebbe reese moved from with that it came off the truck to one place and then he said no not it's got to be moved it was his direction to move it well it came off the site and  would have to follow his orders to correct that even if it meant having them restored reorganize rebar and so forth so i there's lots of testimony but again and you keep going back to catch a paragraph twenty six but that's a general statement twenty six the question here is what we have some being moved where they wanted it at the very least they put it someplace where was going to be out of the way it would at least have done there and if they did then it was a tangled mess when you can say i think it's a he said on that day it could have been a mess this is saying that there was nothing to show at any time prior to that day he was in set conditions he's just saying that before he came to work the condition that probably by that was place that you were given to work on a day on the day of the occurrence that unsafe condition was already placed there before you started to work on it on the day of your calls right yes so before he started to try to look it wasn't that he wasn't and cite his testimony as i wasn't there before the twenty four hours so he doesn't have any personal didn't notice it because i'm closing my eyes therefore i have no duty to look i would argue your honor so that's ultimately i scritched about seo put your head in the sand don't pay any attention for safety despite retaining the control and turning right and saying on the again i don't understand how your position in this case doesn't make a general contractor the insurer strict liability for anything that happens on the job site it's not strict liability because there's is constructive notice there is a question of back his thirty minutes of slipping off the pre condition or summary judgment stranded and slip and fall cases every day because the the evidence of constructive notice is insufficient sometimes the evidence is coworkers they most certainly are as coworkers that doesn't mean that they're not subject to same credibility testing that any jury would do for any witness in a case and certainly they can make that you know value decision of whether they're in fact mr maritz created an unsafe condition that picture shows what it was the condition was after it was moved that picture that same condition that he's a well aware of was the same condition of the rebar that mr foley testified that shows that tangled mess of rebar that shows that unsafe condition so clearly he was well aware of the unsafe conditions and if you was exercising reasonable care what would that mean to supervise the work properly to see that the conditions are unsafe and just take some action what does that action that's where well again so contractors are always responsible to do physically do the work general contractor contractors are responsible to super intend the work and to supervise the work and to make sure that their subcontractors to the work safely that's where the defendant failed in this case that's what the