there was a video that was offered into evidence mosher shows that there was nothing wrong with the stairs when she did the video the one point i believe she testified to trim the vine up quite a bit at one point she says this the stairs in the video represent how they were and she found when you look at that you can see ok so i don't think there's anything in the evidence to the record to indicate that there was a de facto i mean i don't one of the problems i think when we have this case we look at it and we we focus heavily on the defective nature or is there an inherent risk associated with the stairs i guess or i thought and i think we can probably safely say that most sayings have an inherent risk factor to i mean even the threshold when you walk into this courtroom here again we have to remind ourselves that we have a warning to the evidence or code point non effective in any other way stairs but but rather than get hung up on on the defect of the inherent risk to think we need to move the second factor of this and say is this a risk if we assume it's a risk is this a risk that he faced to a greater degree than other members of the general public because of employment and i think that's where this case falls apart and i think so if you assume your honor that there is a risk inher were trying to go but when we look at the record first of all we see the stairs were open to the general public now granted it was limited access and weak knowledge at no three and everybody it probably did were used if that's true but i think the question is was it open to the public it was coming down had this been a case where the kitchen or was going up the stairs the key access becomes a factor i think we have a completely different case i have a very hard time in that case because i think you have limited access as used but we don't have limited access as used in this case because she's coming down like anyone else in the general public can't be coming down the stairs and she turns she's going to talk to one of the friends we don't know what about and she catches  sometimes more she says but she doesn't say how many more whether it's the water reclamation case we had an individual county tip three times a week we don't have any evidence that shows more than one really encounter with this time but it's something that happens to people in the general public you know you're going down a step turn to talk to somebody and you catch you again that video really describes it well it really shows what can see how her foot catches whether her foot would have caught step without a body without a tread i don't even know if you can you could make the pollution that her foot would have caught regardless of whether there was a tread it looks to me like the little part of the foot jeff is on the on the rollover and she's coming down i of the area we're the petitioner felt we have heard testimony we have the testimony of coworkers describing how it happened and it ended in this please keep in mind that there was a slight change between the arbitrator's decision in the commission only to the extent on the arbitrator emphasized activities that were occurring simultaneously with the claimant taking this step the commission felt that those other activities talking to a coworker and violation and i don't think there's any requirement that we prove that that area where someone has an injury does not comply with code does it create a hazard and i think the commission felt that and i think the argument is that the fact that this trip was slightly very good increase the risk of somebody and in this case an employee to use these steps frequently out would catch her foot and lose her balance and then the next step was she had no idea where where the next step was sterilize and washed her footing and fell so i think that the hazard that the commission is referring to is the fact that this  raised as far as the frequency there there was testimony as mr elder pointed out that she attended these meetings a month each month or maybe more and she didn't really specify how how often these other than once a month i think two is important to consider the fact that the hospital complex is set up in such a way that the offices and the areas where employees are required to go in the course of their employment not spread out it's not all in one building and the employees are required to travel from one building to another to live to perform their job duties and and in this case as is the your honor pointed out there are there there is this is not just stairways that is used as often or as frequently by the general public as employees or so arrays one is the proximity of the stairway to the hospital facility so it just doesn't make sense if you look at the video in the photographs for an individual visiting someone at the hospital to traverse the stairway when they've gone in on the first floor through through the doorway leading to the hospital move we we talk about it briefly on page eleven rather and that was a case where i believe the claimant was unable to explain what caused her to slip on injury to her is saying i really don't know what caused me to fall of the event i next next thing i knew i was on the ground and i think that those were the facts and persecutes financial there are so many other mind is the the case of illinois bell where an individual was working what was leaving work walking on west florida all and slipped and fell this is an created a hazard but was certainly not there was no evidence that it was effective or not in compliance with the code but it created a hazard but it was also a hazard to the general that this individual was exposed to actually rose out of her employment and concluded that it did because of the number the frequency at which this individual was required to traverse this area  i think if you concern would be that by saying hey it doesn't matter what happened as long as it happened while you're at work we would be asking the court to adopt the positional risk down i don't the nature of the hospital complex and the fact that employees are required to go from one building to the other increases the risk as well as a limited access that had general public cas the stairway and the fact that this individual was sharing material while she was attempting to go down the steps and speak those are all that to be said occurred in the  i'm not aware of any case that gets into a type of description of what the general public as a whole would encounter and so i think it's a standard that we refer to we are saying to ourselves this is a general person whitely to encounter this in their normal day or have this risk face if we assume we have the risk of an increased risk because of the stare trying to set something that any of us any court room could encounter in our daily events and the answer is yes it is and that's what we're asking this court to do is take a look at this i think with a case like this there's a temptation to be very over analytical about try to nuance this type of case that we really that that responsibility or obligation to pay for that should be placed on