to walk around in the court there were a plaintiff uses due care to avoid a dangerous condition a cause of action can lines here we have this hazard that the plaintiff has comes upon  contested that she that the city doesn't have a duty to maintain a cycle or that she wasn't in a permitted user of the site and we believe that there's certainly questions of questions for the fact that the jury can look to area i don't believe there's at the station as to whether or not that that the control of the areas is an indicator only to adult children he's controlling and he's done these kids and leave that area stone other than the fact that it was installed quite some time ago i don't believe so my mind belief as to why it was and saw those who was to allow for a i can only that i judge how the record found that in his findings of fact and they don't dispute that the only question for this court is the duty issue the immunity issue and the three dash one of two since five laid down a pretty clear rules i will try to pronounce this case the name of this case once again what would your case or the will deal a case that's the best john fleming in doing pronouncing that are a protected intended permitted person and therefore protected person and we have none of those exceptions here in fact none of those exceptions is argued by council here what councils try to do is create a  i don't want to use the word misleading because i don't think that's what house or play it was trying to go here but they're trying to get get us all off of the focus issue and say well if there is a defect on the sidewalk a question of fact of whether the bridge is a defect on the sidewalk that's enough to reverse summary judgment but they ignore the focus of it nor the real issue is that she doesn't enter the street and that's where they must prove that there is some defect that causes of the injury and the courts are clear in this state that once she does stuff on the curb in the street that she no longer becomes an intended permitted use and there's no more no more duty of  versus city of princeton in a person and and exact same almost identical position as ms again and that is leaving the sidewalk just step on the curb in the street it's unfortunate that the curve warning to the record it is used for jury no two purposes the two purposes that it's used for is number one on certain fairly rare occasions a customer will be leaving a vehicle for stor concept or idea as to precisely when it was felt nobody knows who built it anecdotally and this is the horse the record i don't know man sixty five years old i remember whiting off that bridge on my bicycle so it's been there a long time the point is to build a really isn't relevant if you read the city of robbers or robbers first the city of sterling case which is a very interesting case and it talks about some structures along a public sidewalk and  basically as i understand that case who built it really does matter if part of the public way is part of the public walking part of the city's responsibility that we would submit on behalf of markel there is no evidence in the record to establish either as a matter of fact or as a matter of walk an act of appropriation the only time marker would use this as we indicated is on rare occasions the only way that marker could get access to their basement and you case both of those cases would establish that proposition another really interesting case i want to mention and as cited in the brief that would address this whole issue of appropriation and i think fairly decisively is an old first with regards to the city of princeton what they're asking the court to do is to create as create a situation where essentially they can have their cake and eat it and what i'm getting at with regards that the arguments that they me is that that it's difficult from my perspective to say that that makes any signs that dangerous condition is an addition on the sidewalk not on the street the point of commerce that this particular the argument mr russell as relates to mark out there is certainly a question of fact as relates the procreation i don't disagree with the fact that that the defend america would have the right to use the to raise the  regards a dangerous condition they're the only ones who are using that bridge for purposes of going up and down and that you know i think it's reasonable to continue to use will cause or contribute to that particular condition