independent bases for meeting liability against the city of chicago and first is that we have judicial admissions with the original answer the answer the mother points and the answer to the second one all of the leaders of the allegations against the to these systems and pertinence is including the subway grates and he's been recently say condition the property immediately surrounding the i mean we do have to have some whites don't we well we do it the old way that's what the ordinance says but when they say we have met ownership of the site i continue to do that and they don't give us information until after the statute runs it with the you know the city boards you know what are we supposed to do you know i don't know i think the on the sidewalk or did you that's not the case and there is nothing in this record to suggest that there was any appropriation with regard to the condition of the sidewalk being open and obvious plaintiff stated in her deposition that it was a sunny day she wasn't distracted she didn't have anything her arms that would have stopped her from seeing the sidewalk and the standard and open obvious is that a reasonable person or a reasonable person would have been expected tomorrow seen and done  not for instance looking at the pastrana case involving a partially blind individual the standard was not reasonable what a reasonable partially blind person of done but just what a reasonably reasonable person would have seen a concrete frame that's fairly narrow that holds in place the middle of the frame that and then that frame next to it sits the rest the sidewalk the concrete for the rest of the sidewalk if you look at the pictures  helps to clarify it a great deal but there is no dispute because during her deposition the plaintiff circled in red the location of the fall and that concrete frame and indeed there are admissions from the c t a who was brought in as a third party defend by walt cracked by walgreen's that bad in fact they have a duty to maintain the concrete steps so there is simply no dispute that it was not otherwise within the city's duty to maintain the location of her fault and indeed if it had been the sidewalk where she fell and not the subway frame that was not in our duty then she would not have needed judicial stoffel an equitable stoffel in all those other theories particular answer the particular allegation of the complaint and the answer in response because i think that will help clarify to again it's settled that the allegations and answers must be read together and it's only proper to find a party to an admission with respect to what they've actually said and with respect to what they actually knew at that time we did not know until six months after these answers griffith fell on the subway frank so the allegation that she alleges that she was seeking to find a city which is that the city quote had within its corporate limits public streets sidewalks curves adjacent parkways which are regulated and controlled for the use and travel of the general public including a public sidewalk located in particular in front of nine thirty three north bay all that's saying is within the city of chicago there her including a sidewalk in front of nine thirty three north bay that's true that's a truism that is a fact we cannot deny that there is nothing we could have said differently but what we answered specifically was we admit to the near the site of nine thirty three north state a location where she felt that the city holds in trust but in meeting that is not the equivalent of admitting a legal duty to maintain the specific location of where she fell because the city doesn't have a duty to maintain as a matter of law everything that sits on the public way it's just a fact of law that there are many things on the public way the city has no duty over including the park in boxes including newsstands including filippi old including greats including in the frame including the grave and the frame that belonged to the seats so is it is it clear that there's a line of demarcation that honor it's very clear if you look at the photos there is a wind you know how it whenever there's a sidewalk concrete it's like there's a block and then there's a line that divides the next block it's it looks exactly like that there's a frame that long rectangular around the grate and there's a line that the demarcates the difference between the frame and the grate and the sidewalk and this riff or this three post circle the frame itself and not the public sidewalk that was not disputed before today so again the city's answers have to be read in light of what was it half she did not houseguests to admit that we maintained the particular frame where she the statute ran that asked us to admit that we had control over the particular status of the occurrence control of the premises at the site as of the occurrence we sent her back in november two thousand she also received our other discovery which included three one one reports that described c t a train c t a grades and seats he was referenced over a dozen times she was on notice amended complaint based on her met that they had to do work in the area and that's were a couple of construction companies and electric company she sued them but for whatever reason she did not sue the c t a as a matter of law she might have been operating under a mistaken impression about what the legal duties were and where they lay that's not an issue of fact the city can admit away that's just a question of law the plaintiff to research the plaintiffs responsible for her claim the plaintiff is responsible for the allegations in her complaint if she wants the defendant to admit particular facts within our knowledge then she has an obligation to put those back into her complaint she did not put any facts into her complaint regarding the location of her fall she simply said there is a sidewalk in front of nine thirty three north spain indeed there is it cannot be  denying in addition one final point on that it just doesn't make any sense why if the city had indeed known the site of her fall on the subway frame back when we were answering the complaints that we would have not did exactly what we did the moment we found out and her deposition that she felt a c t frame one week later we moved for summary judgment if she had told us before we answered that the was on the subway frame we could have got out on a motion to dismiss so these doctrines judicial an equitable a stock will usually pertain to defendants who have some reason to hide something the city had no reason to hide or glad of legal duty over the location of her fall had we known the location of rafah just briefly with respect to the voluntary undertaking theory because that came a voluntary undertaking  lawyer are limited to a particular undertaking they don't create a duty to maintain in all perpetuity if you fix the whole one time it doesn't mean you have to keep fixing the whole but this is the plaintiff in this case has no evidence that the city did any undertaking at all at nine thirty three nor state and it has to be at the location where she fell and have to be in some way connected to her particular injury before there would be a these general practices if we hear about a complaint walk will go out we'll look and we'll see who has the responsibility to fix it if it's the c t a we'll notify them he did not specify that he went out or that anything was done well that would be relevant your honor if the city had the duty over the location and fact but again this was on something to be just the know well the city but you don't create a voluntary undertaking over something you don't otherwise have a duty to maintain unless you are specifically doing something after that property it's undisputable that we did not have a duty over the subway train so even if we did have knowledge there was a hole on the subway frame we still would have a duty to fix it but the voluntary undertaking theory would create a duty if we specifically had done something that made it worse that was negligent but there's no evidence we did anything there and in fact did you notice the great that was with that doesn't mean that we voluntarily undertook to do anything that would create a voluntary undertaking theory to create a for the plaintiff we would again the voluntary undertaking theory has to be very specifically tied to the undertaking well there's no evidence of this right by i mean is there maybe there is maybe mr holder likeness but there's no testimony that the city did any repair work based on some complaint that was fil defect near wall absolutely correct around or no evidence in the record about anything the city did or did not do about that so there could not have been a voluntary undertaking because that has to be tied to something the studio city specifically did if we didn't do anything and we didn't otherwise have a duty to do anything we're not liable if we didn't have a duty to do anything and we did something that legitimately and she had evidence that was tied to her injury perhaps we could be talking but that this happened in two thousand and seven and there's no evidence that her injury her fall in two thousand and nine had anything to do with this whole whether it was the same hole we have no idea there's a long it's a long segue great we don't know what part of the subway great they were complaining about two thousand and seven and there's again no evidence we did anything in two thousand and seven that with in any way high to what happened to her in two thousand and nine and with respect so your honor with respect to the other arguments that we raise in our brief the three want to for immunity and also the opening obvious we would rast on our briefs and also on the argument and  present to us as a basis to affirm the decision that was then right to the extent the court must entertain those earth humus that present a generation through effect that almost always does in an open office context and again with respect to