l g s say they have an agreement with the school district that they will use the ball fields during the summer months maintain their property would be expanded anyone that goes on their property i don't think well i i think the state of the law would become drastically in really been the law i think the government when these have a duty to maintain their own property and if they're going to be treated just the same as the private owner of property and a private owner property his duty is to use anyone that would potentially be on his property so that i think the same rationale of applying to a public entity especially in light of the  general contractor or employer will have to provide reasonable safeguards against the inherently dangerous activity here it's it is important to note that this is not as if this activity such as blastin a lawsuit carol seven through ten but that imposed actually is directed at those who actually constructed the polls here we allege an independent contractor did made the mistakes in the actual construction of the light poles which are allegedly completely opposite that the defendants did nothing in involved with the construction and they did nothing after the construction as well to me that just sounds more like this is another form of immunity and oh yes briefly when i read the what the issue comes down to is whether the public public duty rule that has an exception to have a special duty rule that would provide liability i only think of one other process in the law that has exceptions to that would provide liability and those  back and say well governmental offices they never have duties to the individual members it's always to the public the media circus seem like how do you possibly bring a lawsuit against the government there if you can they can always go back and say  hundred years ago we didn't have any duties in your duties to the public in general say these defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of others that's really what it comes down as you know what i'm trying to discover under the construction structure propose it bars actions for acts or omissions in the supervision observation and or management of construction jobs you know if the claim is that we failed to take proper precautions isn't that the same as saying that we didn't manage this construction project that we didn't have so we didn't properly observe that we didn't properly supervised i don't see any reason why the construction stash of records would not apply to both the independent contractor in the reasoning underlying that was pretty simple it says that the employer is usually elite quick to prevent the contractors negligence know this case is a perfect example of that principle i would be shocked if anyone in this court room could tell me whether a split boat connector was probably insulated or in fact i know you sure w kind of a series here because they are all interrelated but it says that the employer will not be held liable if the contractors negligence consists solely of the improper manner in which he did the work that's what we have here but there's more arguments that mr unwrapped just made with respect to those counts as well my comments today will focus on a child's dream for against a school district defendant issues here on appeal against school district defendants is very simple it is alleged that the school district defendants had an obligation under this code to maintain their property in a safe manner for anybody who could be on it but that they failed to do so therefore it's clear that  against the school district defendants in the first amended complaint however in the complains that fall in the building the one that's on appeal here the fourth amended complaint plaintiff abandon that straight premises language in favor of the she wanted not to do this even though it was pretty clear based on the circuit court's ruling with respect to the third amended complaint that the writing was on the wall with respect to towns three to four because a circuit court ruled that it was likely that these counts were going to be raise the public duty role until after we were invited to do so a little bit we thought it applied to us but it was our plan to answer the burnham and complain if we had to deny the duty and the potentially move for summary judgment on that point once the issues were narrow the in the with regard to the fourth amended complaint or think the court can look at anything it wants to i've been making a ruling here anything that happened in the circuit court so that's the reason part of the reason why that we did not take issue to essentially a mess but they do the she's away run to the general public and that makes sense because what we're talking here about is not an injury to an alleged student or a teacher we're talking about an alleged injury to a spectator as softball tournament individually now forced plaintiff has also raised the question of whether the other digital is unconstitutional or the court has obviously expressed its concern with even addressing that issue but i would argue that that issue doesn't need to be addressed because the supreme court of school personnel and others who use them when you're talking about a sporting event anyone could be using the property so the code was meant to be for anyone in the public at large so i don't think it actually matters whether i yet it wasn't until after that order there's a core set of you should raise the public duty rule as well and that's where it came out so they never even raised the code rule in this order so there wasn't