tenant the in a purge unit own and managed by the defendants specifically on that date she was walking along a sidewalk provided by the defendants that led directly to the front door for her while she was walking on that sidewalk towards the door she was carrying two bags of groceries one in each hand now on dad's side walk was  was a gap they had been there for quite a period of time the defendants were aware of the gap she told the defendants about the gap and my client herself had been aware of the gap as well most on point for the case of our western not really the seminal case regarding the distraction exception to the open obvious role and the case of the case of work versus kmart in that case of course they would have provided a kitchen in the apartment unit and they would provide a place where work a plaintiff would would come in and you know put her groceries at that only but they haven't dissipated that the plaintiff point bring her groceries into the was perhaps thinking about things that had nothing at all for it with the defendant that that would be an instance where distraction exception would not apply so and the other cases as well have been cited by the defense where  and would have been tended the plaintiff to bring groceries and if she were doing something that had nothing to do with her living space for say that that would certainly be a different situation but this is just this is just a lawsuit when well because we start at a number of things we still need to prove we have to prove notice we have to prove the condition was dangerous we have to prove that to the extent it was open an certainly have all of these things we still need to prove any of this that the special exception is one very small part of the total picture of what we have to prove and we we certainly appreciate that result of something that the defendant's day and yes i still think we need to prove that she was distracted no question about it just so this was something to be submitted to the jury that she was distracted absolutely actually what if this that's that is provided directly for a living unit and goes directly to the right gets the opening of the pool i guess theoretically there might be a scenario where the defendants where distraction exception perhaps would apply if she's carried something into the apartment unit something that would be appropriate to carry into an apartment unit i think i don't think that scenario is in play here and i think  want my point was engaging into distracting behavior as would be the case in any case of this type so so certainly my client was aware of that that she was engaging in behavior both dangerous were open that obvious to your client she knew about we would contend that this that the fact that she would be distracted from the gap is something that would have been reasonably anticipated by the defendants because we would contend that th defendants would have intended for her to bring groceries and other items from time to time interview her and that it would be reasonably foreseeable on their part that my client would be distracted provided the sidewalk lead directly to the apartment unit they provided living space and pretty much invited intended herky to bring groceries to carry them on the sidewalk and bring them into the living  space now this is different from other types of cases in other businesses that are a little more limited in scope so it's a store that sells merchandise certainly a store sells merchandise is not necessarily inviting people to carry non virgin dies items into  can come up with an argument that distraction carrying something or whatever should present a jury question and the open obvious stock is based on the principle that people the fact this guy was focused on traffic he thought happened at a time of the accident when he was actually in the parking lot that's not anything that has to do with the defendant unlike the workers where the backroom case where the activity  shopping there are all kinds of places in springfield that cater where you have a gap in the sidewalk have a slight eve or whatever if we create a question of fact every to get up here and regurgitate all that less support isn't questions i think it was very very clear every district own admission testified during her deposition that this gap was an open and obvious condition and that she believed it was dangerous the defendants in no way contributed to the creation of the structure provided a living space was not that providing a living space inviting in intending tennis to bring groceries carry groceries on the sidewalk provided by the defendant's into a living space that has a kitchen in it when you put all that