will start by saying that well in forty six years i never has had to represent myself in the case but here i am the the proud court dismisses on the basis that no duty to the owner of the restaurant business requires considerations of policy and here in the consideration of those who are factors in the weight of court each of the poor factors in any analysis on the circumstances of he said hanne now the  defense has a duty to protect against unreasonable risk of harm in team forty three i think it was the state of illinois in its constitution adopted the common law of england and said that persons have the dependent operators a business suggested to his customers to park in a certain area there are bumpers that we're all familiar with or in three points or five inches high that certainly do not constitute a barrier or a prevention of passing over the property line that would have stopped the impact of this of this truck into my building all they did was just all those voters do it just see here this is where you should park in this is  to prevent the passage in what i call trespass on my property in no mr going to get a better picture that are these the traditional concrete bunkers that you see in many parking lots which statements you know talk about a little bit later finding but they say that the owner the landlord and this nice landlord of the on the business are one of the same and he can operate his business anyway he wants but he can't mind this parking situation created a reasonably dangerous situation was your building is that right that's correct your honor and how many times did you complain to them about the lack of a barrier i never complained to them because no one ever cost america but that has nothing to do with my opinion because it was in with a living condition that was a dangerous condition and fin somebody good with what happened here but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter what passes as time passed that it didn't happen before because it did happen this time so i get that but the fact that it he runs his business if he did not have proper precautions in place to prevent that happening that's his obligation that's not my obligation then that cannot be passed on to me i think i'm living you know you're saying to summarize it you're saying that you're not under an obligation to provide notice of a dangerous condition to restaurant owner right that's correct ok i have that and if there's a press that does the current in effect it didn't occur in the forty six years i've been here in this office then i don't think that's a factor be considered well let's cut to the chase on this is a defendant present condition that will allow that to happen then it is like and the fact that it didn't happen before that has no bearing on this particular thing it's all things to stand by themselves and my my problem is that they wrecked my property involved from any responsibility for when the trespass occurred or any harm caused my property and i don't think that's fair i think that the fact that it hasn't happened before has no bearing on whether there's an obligation to not property well if you're going to sue negligence correct brett show you have to show that the owner of that business failed to do something that a reasonable person would have done or did something that a liable for the intentional in cruising on land directly casting object on the property of another or for indirectly causing the intrusion if an act is done with knowledge the will to a substantial certain result in the entry of horn objects onto another that the result would occur i think where is the certainty knowledge substantial certainty that the result of this trespass would occur in the quote mind of the defendant your on and that goes to foreseeability and he needs charging should he have the has knowledge of the problem to tell errors that occur daily in the united states forty to fifty a day and that's what those principal elements you know do any breach well let's talk about knowledge here what's this knowledge we're we're in this record is knowledge on the part of the landowner if he's running a business i think he has an obligation to have knowledge of keeping his if customers on his property not on my property there it is right there and i don't think that i have to go in and say to him well you know you have to construct a barrier because that you know he's had in parking things they can people can come across the property line i don't think i have an obligation he has the obligation to unite the burden of proof and the obligation to for want of something that could happen is not my obligation he has the right in the obligation to conduct his business without having intruded on my property and i mean again that's that goes definitely in which common law you can't harm the property of another that diagram confirms that this is generic layout of parking spots with lane markings and parking bumpers that you see every parking lot all across united states counsel claims that there is a latent defect because there is not a barrier whether it's bollards or some other type of vehicle to locking device that should be in front of each one of the parking stalls but that is typical parking lot that you see throughout the world in essence so the council even admits in regards to the foreseeability issue that he has not met any compl again that likelihood of injury would be across every parking lot in the world it's virtually the same this layout is virtually the same as any other law this case is based upon an is not present then we move on to the rd factor duty which is the magnitude of guarding against the a legit defect or danger in the justice of the whole bridge indicated what would a reasonable actionable landowner be in this situation will council suggest that we should put bollards or some barrier that would prevent vehicle traffic in any instance from being able to cross onto property and again this argument could be extended even to a garbage truck or delivery truck which which would create a much higher degree of protection than would be required  that would require in front of every parking spot across the united states and in fact the arguments could be made and between rows of parking because the vehicles that are facing each other in a parking lot could intrude into involve the bicyclists that was driving past the defendant's property when a truck backed out of a driveway that was apparently cited by bushes and the truck driver backed out right into plan could see his driveway from the river till wrote the trial court also relied upon the decision in abdu persist truck transportation the nd district case that's the case that involved the defendant the the truck driver that was making a delivery to the landowner defendants property parked at the mine in such a way that part of the vehicle was parked on a public drivers actions of parking on delivery isn't up to and in this case they're claiming that there was insufficient barriers to prevent the vehicle from entering its properties the three cases also allege negligence but all of these cases are trying to stretch a duty and actual scenario of this in opposite to the duty obligations that i've just alluded to there's no basis to it was noted that the proximate cause is ordinarily a question for the jury but it may be decided as a matter of law and there can be no reasonable differences in the inferences to be drawn by reasonable man from the undisputed facts the total and unexplained in inattention to the roadway while driving an automobile is conduct so outrageously negligent and reckless that in the exercise of reasonable diligence it could not be anticipated and such as the conduct that we're involved in in this case so that there's not a cause in fact nor is there a cause a legal cause that gives rise to a finding a reasonable basis for a finding that there is a grounds for proximate cause to be proven in this case instance on the u s supreme court in discussing the concept the proximate cause in a concurring opinion how that life is too short to pursue every human act to its most remote consequence for want of a nail it seemed to me was lost is a commentary on speech not a statement of a major cause of action against the blacks  yes i do have a couple comments with regard to foreseeability when they use the diagram of the parking lot somehow says that that justifies the position that the jump the bumper with regard to justice holder if you ask about how they're anchor i don't think that having can do with anything because if you're going to jump that bump or only five inches high the fact that it's anchored there you just  no when you talk about have to happen before well this way they've always done it so therefore it's ok well when it does happen that's what this piece is about in also a counselor referred to an intoxicated driver and i try to get that toxicology report and there is not so for them to make a reference that he was intoxicated is totally inappropriate they also talk about the cost of the bollards well the fact is  negress cases in the involved public roads are they involve a lot of other points that are there absent in this case there was a leak and condition present on that property for many years in the back is because nothing happened before doesn't say that it shouldn't happen it could have happened or responsibility in the future for what happened here control of the premises is the key and mr hernandez owned the property owns a business he owns a real estate and i think he has the obligation to ensure that no harm could come to my concerts and i also want to talk about the last about the jury instruction fifteen point o here the trial court said it can only be one person when it wants to cross the property line one person caused the harm but what cause what what person caused the condition to come into being that it could happen that's the owner of the business and therefore you cannot separate the two so approximate cause with the action in concert by both the driver of the vehicle and the operator of the business to cause the ultimate harm and in their other cases where there's two of them parties and then a single person one everybody thinks the sole proximate cause if you know one says one person but the the action here was in concert and so close in time that you shouldn't separated business or cause the condition to come into being and it was sitting there for all these talked about as it happened in court well you know i've been driving pretty quiet a number of years never had an accident and if i did have an accident would my defense be why i never had an x in the course i should be held responsible for this one i don't think that makes any sense and if i did cause an accident i should be responsible and talk to my insurance company or whatever my problems would be but now it's been a pleasure being here and i thank you and i know you every consideration so  you thank you we thank both of you for your arguments here this morning will take the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision as quickly as possible the court will mount in the recess