reconsider his flat and that was also denied within thirty days a notice of appeal to this court was filed and this is a good day no more review of the summary judgment and abuse of discretion on the game to find steal connectors so the general contractor said to him he worked for ron johnson brown and where are the steel connectors so the general contractor knew that he had to find them that not only going into the building but looking at all of the little kitchens were materials had been flails and when you get into the interior walls you have to walk on these construction sites with rust before but this construction site was the worst see it ever see the testimony is overwhelming they add all of the were working in these conditions and the job shooting closed down and so my contention is that with the state of the condition of these premises they number one should not have been working if you were working plywood could lay down there was an issue with regard to screening one of the witnesses said that i doubt on with her with the thing just one thing the lower court opinion does not even deal with the construction negligence cop we extensively are what the contract said we did that  construction site in november in northern illinois where a brick building is being built and the equipment necessary to build the reason restructure is moving on and off the site if you have one person that walk and talk at the same time so he knew what he you know what he was doing where we're he was going and certainly should have been more careful sniff or fourteen which it didn't because it was never raised in the trial court even if it was pled there the record is totally devoid of any proof to support on allowing the section fourteen case no because what we're saying is that the quality of the royal house building now through the roof this is it is the problem there's been testimony from multiple people that they walked through the walls all the time on this job site none of them collapsed something like you look at this scene whilst something over his hand is happening now apparently he's looking at the structure he's walking and he is totally distracted by looking at the hand that the magician doesn't want you to look at and he that was the phone there was the destruction we never conceded that point and the fact we argued the exact opposite that it wasn't the foam that was the structure it was the quality of the site even walking through  has no idea that this was not going to be able to hold his his weight it's like someone saying if there's a sign that says there's a minefield ahead but because they can't see the signs they can disregard personally i can't see the m they can disregard the sun except in this case the person apparently actually saw the route that he stepped in or not which means that in my analogy he not only suppose we saw a sign saying this is a minefield because it was so wet and sloppy throughout the entire site but he actually stepped in the mind of supposedly broke his neck and well there are were same as as the four as the quality of the whole site and all the distracted because the door that he walked through didn't have a window in it for one thing so when he walks through the door with the mirror in front of him he didn't see that which impaled him or caused him to be injured but to present a case that arguably will sustain your course of action agrees it's our responsibility to argue the points necessary which we did with a certain judge and jury however it's not our responsibility to