initially denied section three one of six immunity under the tour and here to the park district because snow is a condition of the property and not affixed to the property in a way that would become the court the question for this court to decide is doesn't unaired troll accumulation of snow and ice constitute the existence of a condition of any public property as this expression is used in three one zero six snow in ice as a weather conviction however section three one zero six would apply in this instance it is the more specific statute and reference is partition just a property where ther which also three one zero two starts with acceptance so everyone is provided in this article being article three so three months are all six is the exception for three one zero two and that is why for example  initial language of three one zero two that it is the exception there were three one zero two says except as otherwise provided the act that exception is three one zero six that relates to recreational property and  and business personal preference property in such a way to become part of the property itself close quote but the language in free one of six has no requirement that property must be affixed before the new to be a plus how do you distinguish by you formation of the alleged on natural condition what the crew have at this core from there for finding that it was the moving of the snow and the ice which was an unsafe activity on otherwise property under three one zero five would be considered a condition of the property under three one zero six it kind of it gives a continuity to the interpretation of the torah rudy act i believe is lacking understand doesn't really rely on any case law either that says that property must be a fixed that was something that the court did it through its analysis of the decision but there's nothing i sorry i'm not familiar with  scope to easing move a bit business personal property however if the court doesn't see fit to the limit in such regard to contend with even understanding the park district entitled to summary judgment to provide that was one contradicted and that dealt with the snow removal methods and that how everything loose was removed thereby only leaving ice that was fixed provided immunity to let the public in these four negligent actions and remove snow and ice on public property public recreational property property the ice upon which miss rouer split even understanding was sufficiently effects from the property when we're looking at the exact for the record my name is richard j grossman and i represent the plaintiff in this case a reporter michael moore who is the administrator of the state of sylvia more deceased may please the court the the issue in this case as it relates to the certify question is simply the application of three one of sex doesn't apply or doesn't apply i think something that's been overlooked that needs to be looked at is first of all what is public property number one secondly who owns snow when storm fast from the sky right ones it the words when that snow hit the if the ground is that property of the park district or is it something that's you know that that's owned by someone from abroad i think i frankly i look for cases that would give a definition of whether or not snow is a a property item and could find nothing in that regard where the leaves came to rest or are they owned by no one well the reason it's important if you look at three rhino run through want to run provides the definition of what constitutes a public property it states does use the article and i saw the rise requires property of the local public entity in public property means real personal property the park district not on a broken curb not on something that wasn't righted properly or or something else she fell on a mound of snow that modernist snow or as alleged was placed there by  carcass trick employees they shot him dead from one side in other words the sidewalks they show for the snow up to the curb and then the plow in the parking lot pushed the snow up against that pile creating a m the plaintiff in that case tripped and fell assuming that they did not touch it the hose would have remained there until it rotted into existence in other words it would stay there that's a piece of property that would be right on top of the park district property and i talk of it in style and there's no real issue that the park district did in fact owned the hose in this case we're talking about the snow nice and that i as i suggested in my opening in this as to who if anyone owns reason well i'm not critical of style when i'm what i'm suggesting this time could have grown further if if the court had decided to do that in other words it was sufficient for the  for a justice or brian made for his decision to make a determination that the hole was in and of itself is not part of the property and he was there was sufficient for him to make a determination and presumably obviously the other justices agreed or to render an opinion in that regard however in the list particular case and the words what i'm saying is that them starting the halos is it obviously is good now we get into the he and the other interpretation which is leading our world or not it is a fix of the property down the blue sky and callahan could be wrapped up i mean there's a couple stride was being used at the time in question for a specific recreational but the problem in our case is there is nothing wrong with the sidewalk there's no allegation is that the sidewalk was defective in any way there's no allegation of the curve was defective in any way there's no allegation that the parking lot was defective or the asphalt or  for six does not apply then it is the same if there's absolutely nothing different sort of words the sense it tells us simply is that there is an obligation there's no immunity under renner five and i've heard you asked the question earlier  fact that it was our position there were no six does not apply to this factual situation the circumstances and as such if wrong or six doesn't apply there's simply no immunity i told you my reason now maybe i'm being creative in terms of the definition of the want to run versus one of sex i'm simply pointing out something that i don't think anybody else pointed out which is obviously any time we have we talked if i guess i could for some a situation of you know if leaves were being you know blowing about in the fall this is winter comes upon us you know those leaves are coming from everywhere there's leaves that you know that there probably what i should have done in the first place simply the store i spose not affixed to the property in such a way to become part of the property itself in other words if left alone if we leave this starting on the ground it's there forever theoretically the snow and ice on the other hand is not it will melt it will evaporate it will disappear you don't have to do anything to it to have to accomplish not a part of the property is not a myth is not affixed to the property can such a way then the according to the stein decision three zero six three one zero six does not apply under that theory as well thank you both thank you very much to snow and ice cases in council touched upon this about when the snow and ice melting evaporate well that doesn't happen overnight and the changing weather conditions when when snow starts to melt at some point there's a transition from when the snow and ice fall on your property where it's not your property so whether it's your property then how do we sat beside there to respect the spectrum of weather due to changing weather conditions so it makes the application of these movable personal business property understanding to almost impossible under snow and ice conditions  which thank essentially visser its three one zero six interpretation as three one zero six does not use the word affixed so that it is getting away from strict its interpretation of three one zero six that counsel argu