instead of down three feet which is what most of the stew then you need to do something about those things like at our feet so you can actually see them and that's what this case is about so if anybody falls outside of a restaurant its restaurants will not at all this is not a case  and the lack of visibility and her fall so this is not the same pace as i don't know why filter what i  well we can argue this but i think that in that in this state when we have sufficient facts to rise could rise to a question of a material fact were titled mike tyson who trial on that fact and we should that the question whether the with regard to open office is it is a question of of fact when there is sufficient testimony in evidence to indicate that there's this and you need to look at other e which is what happened in this case but you cannot admit that she does not know what the lighting conditions were at the time she felt that she does not know whether the area in front of was comes from the point both anderson and you know he said he didn't know the fires that she doesn't know she knows there was life coming on there are lights on in the restaurant she doesn't know there was in the front of the building she thinks there might be lights in the parking lot but she is not sure and she says in one one place that it was not light enough to see her face too she could see that is not enough that is her opinion as to what the lighting conditions were but there is no basis for that opinion because she said she doesn't know where they were now if she said you know there was a when i leave it was like when i came out there were no lights on in the parking lot guess i looked around and it was completely pitch dark i couldn't see and i i tripped and fell ok that's not this case this council said in her deposition she was all over the ballpark it is the plaintiff who will say what she thinks her question or wants to hear i would remind the court that the statement that she could see where she was setting which now it is contradicted by argument saying well those names you could see what she was stepping on  i put it to you that the question was was asked by her own counsel in the deposition and the question was clear and the answer was clear she can see where she was stepping and she also said that she stepped off the curb and she twisted her ankle and she felt nothing about bath creates liability on the part of my client and losses as your honor as there is liability for anyone anytime anyone fall from the restaurant this is not strict liability the fact that she told this same thing to the emergency room personnel she tried to say well not really didn't say that i might have said that if i didn't say that it what the lying was in from the fake check whether it was as wide as it is in this room for starters it is under under this quote there's nothing in the record to show what that is and that's the plaintiff burden of proof there is there which is been a few months ago now but that was that was years after and if the players burden of proof show that's world war was the cause of her fall and if you read the deposition and if you look at those pictures and where she she is again all over the parking lot in this case as to where she fell and how she fell and purely speculating after the fact as to what might have offered speculation filing a complaint or planted in this case there is an allegation by filing a complaint and now all they have to do is present is present some evidence which says that there were no lies on the exterior the building there was no light in the  to avoid the summary judgment is that they needed the witnesses say for example how many lights were on or a limited time in the fall and i guess where they were positioned in relation to the place substituting their view seven eight years after the fact or wife was there at the time of the finest fall i'm believe all of your saddest protests i have asked for juries to go son didn't see it there are no witnesses there was no evidence presented of any documentary well i'm sorry we have some photographs and those photographs taken by the plaintiff replace attorney some time after the fact her missions that she can see that's the bottom line she says you can see and if you if you take that as a as a finding judicial commission which i think you must then whether or not there were stripes and i