lori fisher your honor this case presents a single issue for review and that is whether florence recreational use statute bars business visitors such as the fishers from bringing  suit we believe that ordinary principles of statutory interpretation compel the answer to be no i'd like to start if i could with the structure of the statute for you before you do that yes or no mr fischer was injured in a completely public area yes run so how is he a business invites you or visitor at the place of a tree well if you can be a business invite heat and then go to a place where you recreation you statute is always going to be the case that it's open to members of the public but there are a couple points on this particular issue that i'd like to rely on and the st is that at the tables beach they occupied a different status because they could rent the pavilion and what matters is the entirety of the base that they had access to the entirety of the base and so they could enter  all sorts of different places i recognize that our case would be far stronger if they were say at the beach house or one of these other places where the public wasn't invited but that would be clear cut again we think that based on the structure of the with you know access to an area check out the recreational purposes check in the statute says no duty of care no duty of care no duty care why is that just not dispositive ok argument on the text follows and i'm the reason the provision at issue and i'll quote it a landowner who quote provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry and use by others or to give warning to persons entering on or going on to that area for any of any hazardous conditions structures activities so the key words in the section from from our permit from our perspective are the public and by others and those are words that suggest that immunity applies to two of external entrance on to the land or strangers on to the land so others standing contradict contradistinction to people who have  phrase i would think that others stands in contradistinction to the owner it's like the owner has no duty with respect to the world is the way that sounds right well again or would we view it that business visitors are an extension of the owner for instance if and i'll just give like seven sided you know that statutory interpretation issue if you're interested purely on commonsense if your boss sends you on to the land and you get hurt you could reasonably ask why did he put me in harm's way why didn't he warn me that there was this late in the nd when it is a member of the public and was a member of the general public his land without permission has no relationship with john doe property owner and that person can't complain he's on his own he can't complain when he gets hurt i'd also like that there's another the very next step toward provision three hundred and seventy five t twelve b this is this is important notwithstanding the inclusion of the term quote public in this subsection and subsection one an owner or less he who makes available to any person an area primarily for the purposes of hunting fishing or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation of liability and then goes on provided that the lessee provides a written notice of this provision to the to the person before or at the time ventry on the area or is ok so they recognize that that is primarily focused on members of the public right but if you open up your land if you invite people hey you can go fishing you can go hunting you can do wildlife here you actually because it would it would upset their expectation they might think hey i'm in invitee here so you have to post that notice on the property or actually give the notification of the purpose to t he person who enters the property so that recognizes that term public it has meaning and it applies to people who are external and again i think the the strongest point in our favor and in order to make sense of that provision you have to conclude that it was an intentional policy choice it was an oversight that they that they omitted from the previous subsection the one that's at issue in our case they omitted that language and  someone right so either as you said it doesn't it doesn't include everyone in the same way that sub three does so it must exclude someone so that even if we grant you that premise why is it that the excluded someone would be business in by sort of  a sub sub category of one of the three mentioned in sub three why wouldn't we conclude instead more realistically it seems to me that one that the excluded category would be either invitees as a whole licensees as a whole or trespassers as a whole wide just your clients basically that's my question what we primarily we think that business in viki's or business visitors is the closest analogy to what the status of the occupied but also to answer your question more directly public invitees you know after reviewing the briefing i sort of agree with the government if you look at the definition of what a public invitee is it's someone who comes in and is invited onto the property for the use you know a member of the general public who comes in and who's invited for that particular use of the property is held up and so if the court were to say you know public  are they don't trigger that immunity under the statute it really would kind of gut the statute by contrast with business visitors i mean suppose the person is a janitor who comes on of the noblest of his own way without any he has to come onto the land we think of that person and granted that you know this would be an easier case from our perspective if they were there as as a consequence direct consequence of you know they had to be in tables beach at that point but having said that we didn't think that when the landowner makes it makes it available to you then that person you know it comes with certain expectations on it the expectations are that you principle that a statute that is derek a should have the common law needs to be strictly construed right correct but you have a provision that the florida legislature has left  two quick points of my time is running low so you can you can finish answering the question ok st we think again you know i'll return to my main point that the there's nothing inconsistent with our reading of the statute and the purpose of the statute because it in the united still immunizes land owners from the from suit let's say that one hundred people enter the property ninety nine percent of those people are ninety nine of those people  let's say one hundred people get hurt on the property in a given year if ninety nine dollars of those people are members of the public then the landowner would still be immunized from suit ninety nine percent of the time and so only one of the dollars person only could be could bring the suit so there is it's consistent with the purpose of the statute in other words so it's just not correct said that the landowner would get no benefit from the statute he would be immunized from suit any any suit brought by a member of the public he would gain immunity from that but it's only people who under the common law would have would have an expectation that they would be treated with a higher duty of care only those people could bring suit and to answer your question more directly to the extent that the court considers that that legislative purpose i think it's really an effort boys with the other candidates test for interpretation one says you have to construe things t the purpose is to encourage lenders to make their public their land available to them for public use by limiting their liability in each persons using these areas so let me let me i think i am generally sympathetic to your ultimate results but there is an example that mr greenlee mentions that gives me pause so a  landowner who is covered by this provision three hundred and seventy five point two five one two eight tells its employees to go to a completely public area and pick up trash and those employees get injured putting aside workers compensation those employees don't have employee ok it's a contractor the landowner or the landowner wants to pretty up a facility that it opens to the public and it hires some sort of company to provide advice on how to do unify the premises right and zat entity has to send people on the premises to see what recommendations are and ate and when they go into i don't know let's say a public you know facility where two way expressly rejected the duty of care that would otherwise be due invitee whether invitee is a member of the public and therefore is republican by t or whether that person is a business and mighty so i would say that because of what a legislat property issues either does or does not generate revenue because of the property does generate revenue either by way of entry fees or otherwise then the immunity provided by the statute does not apply so most of the litigation seems to concern that in fact the the overarching purpose is to encourage landowners to make their private private property publicly available to members of the public for recreational use and the the way to look for legislature encourages from florida should we consider certifying to question to the florida supreme court well you running this court certainly could you there but i do think that the grant of immunity is so broad and allows for only one statutory exception which is not issue in this case so i think this court can resolve the case based on the a plain reading of section two way in conjunction with the language and the purpose case because in this case i don't think there's any dispute but that the exceptions a liability provided by section to see forever new generating property is not an issue so what that leaves us with a broad of pliers to persons entering or going on the area in section one makes clear that the purpose of the statute is to limit liability to persons using these areas so there's nothing about flying language sections one or two collapsing the two points that i was putting to your adversary so setting aside whether it might be you know sort of business invitees that are excluded you know by virtue of the difference in language at a more general level how do you there's this general principle that where yes you know sort of two statutes that are ordinarily understood together one says something in the other doesn't say something we you know we have some meaning to that difference what would you say to that well your honor i tried to come up with nothing in the various permutations of the statute over the years that provides any guidance or insight into why did the legislature include that provision and section three b it's not included section two but th that it's going to enter into no written a written agreement and if you read the subsection it says with such agreement recognizes that the state is responsible for personal injury loss or damage then it drops down  subsection b then this subsection applies to all persons going on to the area that is subject to the subject of the rent so the state is essentially they're saying we take up where we pick up the tab and we will pay for the personal injury then the landowner is completely in and so that's not the case i think it represents a policy choice on the part of the legislature to where the land is that significant like let's say it's like a natural spring or are an area of cultural or historic impro importance and we're going to answer in an into agreement with you to further incentivize you to make that land open to the public and we're going to pick up a bear the cost when somebody sues then you have full immunity across the board so that's what that provision is doing and you see ins in subjection to they don't have that the area is simply not as significant to the sta and that's why they there's a lesser degree of immunity that's conferred under the statute that's the only way really to make sense of why they included it in subsection three but not in subsection two and as mr gran points out you know they opened up the hood they take what the language they know very well how to provide that across the board immunity to to landowners so they chose not to they they could have very easily revised the statute  while they were you know what hey what we're working on it what were conferring with the language in subsection three let's just add additional protections to the landowners and subsection two but they chose not to and you can't just assume well this was an oversight or i explanation i think we do have to make sense of why they would include it in subsection three now with regard to certifying the question i think that's a very sensible idea i mean it you know we aren't after all we're applying florida law here and this is an issue a st impression under this statute why shouldn't the florida supreme court be the one to hold forth on what this you know they should be the ones to make sense of the statute not the th circuit where federal court and we think our position is that you know the modest way to go about things is to allow the florida supreme court to tell us what what this statute should be what it does me n and in closing i would just like to stress that the status of the entrant has always mattered it's always merit mattered and post versus one that would versus camp and even the absent decision the rationale of  decision which is after the accident of this is that because you're as a trespasser you you're you haven't gained anything that you wouldn't otherwise you know you stand in the same position that you would have been so that the florida supreme court look to the status of the of the entrant when they made that decision and that was the whole rationale behind the absences so we think that the status of the entrant matters and we think in this particular case when it your boss says you should