an easter construction plaintiff's case is based on circumstantial evidence which is undisputed on contradicted by defendants the only real dispute  is what logical inferences can reasonably be drawn from undisputed circumstantial evidence this is appealing quality and here is a tug of war between what is a  was that hose that roll over here were here we have an isolated pier i think for a second use important for this appeal despite the factual differences between cause it stands for the reasonable inference and speculation i mean when you have witness testimony like we did in harness i that's one thing maybe that isn't speculation but here we don't have the in this would be from the pavement did i believe mr martin took some pictures at some point in time that might have been offered to the court is there any evidence found water trail with their areas ice or just stating the pavement from those ice piles or the snow piles to we're this accident occurred if i had that evidence i might not be here today but would point out that the bank's employee ilesha school field talked about the service of the parking lot generally being wet and even though this fact wasn't highlighted in the briefs i don't believe so feet away from where this isolated two by two foot path was that is correct and the judge speculated that perhaps of the client when she worked in the same location the day before that the inference that the patch of ice only a few feet away from a snow pile that extended over the curb of the parking lot is more than speculation it is a reasonable if terms in the context of all the evidence whereas jarrett sure says remarks strike me as speculation which is the evidence that the defendant hid actual or constructive notice of this condition  others the bank manager men were intimately involved in the design and construction of this parking lot and particularly the landscaping which is a raised berm above the surface of the parking lot on traffic which the snow was piled up there at the bank every day the vice president julie mossad justify did she's in charge of the snow removal contract and she has the right to direction where the snow is piling or have to haul the way they were there every day i've already respectfully suggested the vet gives them constructive notice of what's going on down the road piles of snow  correct that this parking space which was relatively close as it sounds was hers and she was it a day before if she didn't even have to complaints about the day before did cheat i don't believe so i think it's reasonable to infer that you found one national melfi it's going to end up on the surface of the parking lot right in the parking space where mary martin parked and were and a few feet from where she fell do we know how much drove them in the days preceding it's i don't know off the top of my head i was probably in the medical records but i think the testimony was that there had been any precipitation for a couple days at least for i think a week maybe now you are do this or you indicate that you believe that crane of the day oh i distinguishable and yet if we look at the facts of those cases that seems to mean they're pretty similar  think the factual differences are start with theory there was a recent pursuit potations rain tonight were snow the night before the plaintiff testified herself to the surface of the parking lot the day before she slipped  whether the ice patch was a few feet from the snowball pile or contiguous to the snow pile is really not significant particularly because in both cases there were no eyewitness testimony significantly perspire or sweat when it gets warmer and then the temperature goes down is there any evidence that that's why it did the parking lot with dam accident hired there to and sent and that's what the the evidence has shown that some dispute that i'm here today of course requesting that the summary judgment that was granted by judge schorsch of the fifteenth district of the fifty circuit is affirmed and because i only so the cost of plaintiff's argument here of course is that there is a slow plot that there has been snow high all along portions of the perimeter in this case specifically the west and north side of the l factors cumulatively so the circumstantial evidence as plaintiff has admitted time and time again this court has specifically said that circumstantial evidence cases in slip and falls are circumstantial evidence they also require to present an expert handicapped curbs plus this is and this is critical of the plaintiff was on the ice that was connected to the snow piles at issue and even more potentially more credit claim what we don't have here besides the q the continuous notice of the ice and the snow is that the village director of public works who would be the representative of the defendant and neck case greed that i seem to have formed or could  the the the difference is that both of those cases had direct evidence of this causal link and so i know that plaintiff has said time and time again that you know if i didn't have this direct link possibly i wouldn't be here but that whether and to prove i mean we live in northern illinois it's march of course the temperatures are fluctuating they're getting warmer and colder again at night and in the crane he she said the plaintiff said i'm ninety nine point nine percent sure that alternatively you can come forth with an expert that's that there's something about this law that would lead ice to form in the spot that the plaintiff out in the snow hot contractor hired the snow here we don't have either to submit to your honor's to the extent that that argues that somehow his lack of action or his lack of being out there in monitoring that those piles on day to day are minute by minute basis somehow gives rise to a duty here that that is spilt overnight in the parking lot somebody came along even one of the bank employees might say got out of her car that morning and spilled her coffee issues carrying in to work again pure speculation because we don't have an identifiable link relating that scenario swapped defended certainly does not dispute that the parking lot was sloped in this matter and the bank employees were involved in various design aspects when they were filling the parking lot which is is undisputed in law has resulted in a defective condition plaintiff would have to show that the slope itself is of a dangerous nature and then that the dangerous nature of that slope actually caused an led to the and they believe it's going north west to south east and there is a drain in the parking lot which of course is is prudent from a designer's perspective my knights of course are not sophisticated property designers or engineers and i would actually compare that to the case one of the cases that was cited by plaintiff which is the the straw case in which there was a woman who was working company the dangerous nature of that grade because they had staff engineers they were such a big company that they had they had years that were hired and employees of the company so the court actually imputed knowledge on the defendant saying when you have engineers that are working for you you should know that a thirteen point six percent green on a sidewalk is is a defective condition that's not the type of situation that we have here although my clients were involved in the certain design asked facts they weren't actually designing the parking lot and they aren't of an engineering background of course these people are bankers and clerks so they don't have that same type of knowledge and of off plaintiff has not offered any expert testimony of the nature of th oh so his own sake said that she's kind of the property manager and she was there during the construction of this parking lot and she looked at it on a regular basis  gnat's that was never really asked of her in her deposition but it it was my understanding that that's not the extent of her involvement it was more just from the bank there needs to be someone as essentially a point person with the people that were on simply having a sloping parking lot is of course not negligent and it needs to be demonstrated that there's actually a dangerous nature of the slope that we have here and no one here knows what the slope of the parking lot is because there was no expert that i ever went out to measure that so plaintiff simply stating that we have a sloping parking lot which of course is not disputed that there's no connection to a dangerous condition and even one step further there's certainly no connection between hatch on which she slept and we of course don't have any of that evidence in this case so in terms of holding my client responsible for it from the perspective of being the landowner plaintiff has fallen significantly short of her burden with respect to showing that there was some type of design issue with the parking lot of light to this injury if somebody a witness who visited the party my periodically or i'm going to get going to music up the window i happened to see a flow of water going to that drain not necessarily to the location of the ice patch but going to that dream would then have song impact on this particular issue i think th could potentially have an impact on the issue of the person who is and again i'm not speaking of course from the position of an engineer and we don't have any evidence like that in this case but common sense would tell you that the any type of a slope in a parking lot towards a train is designed to hop that hurting  h during the water on its surface of the issues like this wouldn't happen so i would almost i would argue that if there had been testimony to that fact that there's water leading from one place to the other and there happened to still be an ice pa clean a foul that i think plaintiff would need an expert to show that there's some type of depression in the parking lot do you think it would hold water isn't exactly because if there isn't a specially her vehicle is that in the middle of the ice flow to the drain then that to me call it a pothole right this is it's very familiar ok and i think i know i'm almost out of time but i think that's the crux of the issue with respect to my plan is the landover owner and again i'll know do we have any information about any heister came a couple days earlier to put down ice melt do we know if that was it at the banks request or he was just going by checking properties and he decided to do that existed for a sufficient amount of time or through the exercise of reasonable care of the front should discover the dangers condition correct  where i confess ignorance is to which case counselor is referring to i i recall from russell in particular that there was no is case law that says kind there are some of these issues are common knowledge that snow was it refreezes and water drains down here only and other things like th and i'm not in a position to concede councils argument that expert testimony is needed in this case i wish i'm sorry i can't be more direct i met well i think this issue might be the this is we don't have that picture that you wished you had of a light water or a stain on the pavement going to that little ant that caused the problem but you do have this snow pile around and you have a drain somewhere located probably in the middle or three quarters of the way through the parking lot somebody has got to be there to say how that water got there and that would have to if it hasn't been noticed by anyone that probably is what an expert would have to tell us how did the water get there were you're assuming that it melted and ran there but we don't even know that they had from what i've seen so far that's actual slow that is taken the slope may be bank in regard to the way the the where the drain was placed in a while and generally the way the surface of the lot was graded said it is intended to drain generally from the north and west to the southeast where the drain is located and i believe one of them said he drains as as it's supposed to now that's not a direct answer to your question but this spot we are  was to the west and a little bit north of where the drain was located but it was essentially the same area that she had the day before when she got out it was true yes and you know the point