back what happens when children are wrapped around water it's not a question of if they will fall into the water eventually children will fall into the matter and risk injury they answered here is having all jacket was afraid of and parents were aware they were aware he was afraid of the water and council he one thing that i find difficult is proximate cause here you need to no one saw the rope before now so we don't know what condition or the location of the rope or the shaping of the rope prior to discovering the child you know you're  and mr wright the father testified that the child was seven to ten feet away from him running away from him and the last time he saw him running to kuwait correct he was going up to his brother on the other end so according to mrs wright she was approximately twenty to twenty five feet from mr white if i remember correctly that testimony so we have been separated better perhaps a little twenty five feet we have tyrone the third in between  noticed that after the trial when it so he can testify that it was him exposition first and then in the right position second so which would i think give us some basis to say that there is evidence that the rope was touched by the child and basically say the rope for the first time after the traffic disappeared and at that point he described it as being one can't as far as i'm aware these ropes are not new in pristine so he described the dirty rope that was laying into the road or about two feet  and this rope was i think about ten feet away from him and as he got closer he didn't describe anything different about the rope because his focus was obviously in the lake so that's over half and he was there was there any testimony about any obstructions between know anything that would possibly imply that the child would have had to go around something you know get close to the edge of the dock you know names to ask those kinds of questions and the only brought six new ones because he researched the ones that were better for children he specifically said that because he had that knowledge argument is a side note other words it would be still burdensome but the saw in that presence would have made no difference because he had the requisite knowledge assigned would not be there for the purpose of the child obviously so having the sign there again in terms of perhaps in the car as it had nothing to do in this case because mr white was seasons relatively speaking and he had knowledge of not translate to a legal duty legal duty that your honor really has to do with the reasonable expectation of my client that not only is it going to be a child in the area but that he will be unintended and in this case there is no reasonable expectation because we're not talking about a pose a particular problem such that they would have to you know maybe do something different now other going to be busier times were you know maybe up to be more careful potentially but in general groups themselves are everywhere their responsibility of the boat  awful he said concrete right into lake michigan knowingly circle of these cases like at mt sinai and all they didn't jump but they certainly put themselves in a dangerous place like if you believe the plaintiffs theory of the case i know you don't but if you did he would say the one wasn't jumping into the water he was saying oh i think i can do you know i can swim now i'm going to jump in he trip was an accident and so there may be a duty to warn but you know i think if you look at the actual theory that they're putting forth i think it's a little bit of a red herring to talk about whether he did or didn't appreciate the danger of the one that took us that route that the first is that the the requiring if the road to me is that we would require every spur some of that age to work best i don't know how that would be implemented i think the burden in that and the do the analysis the burden would be significant at that point because then i'd have to reasonable can i take it back to proximate cause just think if there's a case jackson vs t l c associates i think that this has been cited by the parties i would imagine that's how i feel myself this is the case the question there but not on the issue proximate cause you know that the individual in the dying i don't think they got his testimony before he died and so essentially nobody knows what happened nobody knows whether once that or child went under the water whether he hit a rocky bottom or whether he hit the pipe the difference between those two things could be the difference between liability and not liability for the defendant's but the supreme court said even though there was nobody to testify because there was a pipe down there that he probably would if it were lead prevented him to let the lake bottom and i think also in either way it made a situation i think the court commented that ultimately you have these two reasonable possibilities and yeah i would agree that he probably didn't do that but you have a guess as to whether the harbor somehow contributed in the condition of it it's completely guesswork in this story in that case in jackson i think it was slightly more narrow in terms of the ladder there they would have done down the ladder to get that child and the other witnesses there's testimony in the briefs that people looked around could now find any assistance assistance he disappeared and no one saw me again before his body was found so people are willing to assist the child when you went off the bat there was nothing anyone c