it's whether they win and they should have had knowledge of the pike and one of the issues that the courts look at his is that a duty can exist if i hazard was present for a long enough period of time they had through the exercise of due care and should here well we know that there was i am at least two occasions there was work performed again or near the area where this pipe was located while i was there was a kitchen fire that resulted in some smoke there are a greater number of them typescript truly through the roof of a building then why are you having existence in the plumbing system you know there's something a mess and someone should have taken a look hey we've got you know five ten pipes and only two active you know the construction people to be imputed to the owners i don't see where you have any specific evidence of this other than this argument that you don't need should here at home or you should know a lot of things that honestly they don't know about so you're saying there's a little be aware of it are two different things and someone saying i wasn't aware but i should have been that's constructive notice and surely th that was concealed under a pile hold on just there are some interesting similarities there had been converted from its purpose as mining land to some other purpose before her fa purchases property so whatever the hazard was predated her dad's ownership of the property there was no evidence there that the father was aware of this smoldering fire underneath the slack pile he testified that he hardly ever went out there by the applied to the road but the city doesn't come out and and scrutinize everything and the mere absence of citations for code violations doesn't mean everything is up to code he said they give these these code violation correct however you know i mean i think on a business owner would would have an allegation this is a flat roof and you have to you know pay more attention to flat roofs than you do to slanted roofs because snow piles up on these things i have read the duty falls to the owner of the property whether they you know whether they hire someone do it themselves get their son in law to do it or whoever the duty is for the landowner to make a reasonable to investigate find the hazards and fix them and i think in this case it is the mere fact that there are differing opinions between these two people on whether this this  notice is that they should have known and based on the existence of this pipe for the twenty seven years that these that these defendants occupied this building and perform work in the area where this type existed they should have the sufficient time for it it and i think most people with some common knowledge would expect you're going to have some problems going to with regard to what's in the record there's no evidence that there was any leaking in the area where this pipe fell from and it is a trial court pointed out i mean if in fact their theory were true that this despite somehow protrude through was concealed from home all by a ceiling which is what it was i mean if you were in the interior evidence there was in the building code violation anything of that nature and she points out the fact that you know we had a rough retard we hung the brush seen on the interior in those things somehow  tried to make some notes to i dress some particular issues so pardon me if i'm skipping around a little bit here one of the last comments should've known it isn't based on speculation and conjecture i agree and we're not and discover hazards and you asked about case law before the chapman news i cited out of the fifth district business owner must exercise reasonable care to discover and correct hazards that clark case out of the britain versus you versus chicago hospital is a revolving door that fails but it's been used for a long period of time somebody seriously injured but there's there's no duty to inspect something that appears to be working  there are cases as you cited where you know someone got injured on something that had never had a function before and that was you know that no hazard ever existed it wasn't just that no one had notice of it the hazard didn't exist prior to the injury that's different in this case they should have known because there were too many net pipes extending up through the roof of the building and then were in in use in the buildings that should have ever learned some line that there is a problem there or there is at least a need to check it out and find out what's going on in the spiraling case there is if there wasn't an owner of smoke coming from the sla pile that really was a red flag or a smoking gun so to speak that alerted you know that should have alerted this guy that that there was a fire under there he said that there was an occasional sulfur over which is different than an older odor of smoldering in the hall he said there actually even though there may be even higher ups that doesn't necessarily indicate some sort of circumstance it might be dangerous though does it well it indicates that there's something there that shouldn't be this is a flat roof and as mr francis pointed out it has to be retired you know on the occasional basis i don't know that this eighteen years ago was the only time it was retired that was a time when it is mentioned it was retard because it was leaking but just being up on the roof would let you see all of the bend pipes that were all there you don't have to be standing right near the vent pipe the lead doesn't have to be near the vent pipe that fell for them they know that the valve is a problem just merely being up there and performing normal maintenance of time that this hazard existed in the longer the length of time that it existed and wasn't discovered that is seen as an issue of material fact for the jury to determine whether that was long enough that it should have been discovered in the i believe that was  use one week was not long enough for a farmer to discover a downed wire on his property in the spiralling case six and a half years that was long enough to raise an issue of material fact about whether this this twenty seven years at the home for occupied this building defunct despite the fact that they couldn't see this defect readily twenty seven year if six and a half years is an issue of fact about whether that's long enough twenty seven years in this building is