removed essentially all of the snow from the parking or gas station light area but there wasn't snow or ice every main covered one of these manhole covers there are common to gas station part in it covered death because it was slightly resurfaced there in the in the concrete there's no evidence of that so there's anything other than what remained as a result of the original snow fall and then the plateau testimony w plough is still a natural accumulation you can also salt but salt down that even though it may alter the form of the condition of the snow or ice does not cause an unnatural accumulation still remains natural accumulation you can go out and move that snow through a snowplow or other device and not thereby exposures up to liability simply because you've altered the original form that snow or ice likewise you put down salt and that doesn't expose you to life you of what's what and why will forward not right i don't i don't think that alters the the general rule it is still snow or ice that remains as a result of the natural snow event and in police in the evidence of this case snow removal that was not carelessly or negligently or the fact that it is now on this in this recessed area the law does not say that  it's the snow or ice that remains only on a perfectly flat surface where you don't care about exceptions from that and that and to me the important part here is that this litter this manhole cover there was no evidence that it was there or improperly or allowed a natural accumulation to exist in it and it was it was slightly recessed which there was no evidence that was improper and it was a characteristic of the business says you know if you had that situation in something where it was gauges and valves and things like that so it's it's a i think that's important here this was a functioning characteristic of the property of a gas station and it's not something that was unnecessary to the fair business that this is more slippery when covered with ice than concrete what slippery is the ice for the snow it's covering the surface and so there i found no cases that judge a non issue i think in the a says and yet what we're doing here as it were is a christian duty which is a question of walk how do you reconcile that standard i guess raped you with the question before this or as a matter of law a duty oh well i think to address the issue of duty you start with the basic rule that there is no no duty to remove a natural accumulation so we have to look further fraps that this is an unanswerable accumulation and jumps over the issue of duty and goes to argue breach by saying that we didn't warn of the accumulation there we didn't put out a very or we didn't but down a proper salt or something like that but that jumps over a big primary issue way represent the appellee in this case i first want to start out by addressing some of the factual issues that were brought up this particular manhole cover the testimony was was used once in fourteen years role with respect to cages but that looked like it was hardly ever use the issue before us is the duty with respect to this small area this manhole cover right near and have aware of other instances where isomers had supped on it or customers a complaint so when addressing whether this is an undoubted true accumulation all the cases really say merely doing one thing doesn't turn it into an actual humiliation that one thing meaning merely putting salt on it or merely clout but in this case there's a variety of things acts and omissions  the the accumulation or or your on the plate because the boy just goes over the top of it so what is left on the plate which is invented from the rest of the parking lot was already there therefore it was pack snow into a snow that came from other areas of life so the snow and ice that was in this recessed area wasn't the snow or ice it naturally fell into it was also snow from other parts a lot that was pushed into it that was took a ruler across it like that i mean you anything to eat anything on top of the class and it's kind of the same thing although it's only about that much lowers understand  that there is a known hazard right near the entrance way where the employees who work there testified was sperry slippery problems and had  when it's more foreseeable that there's going to be a problem so in any trip and fall case folks factor in whether it's a high traffic area you have a greater degree of duty under the natural  it is what it is there's you only have a duty to for going to move the snow to do it if you go they don't do anything there's no duty you don't right that's true so i don't see where you get a higher duty because of the placement of this place as opposed to around the corner well if you're talking just about the natural versus the natural cumulation rule in this particular instance the testimony was that it was the snow and ice that's and this it's not just flat across it was sort of like up up hole now wasn't a pronounceable if you look at the pictures it's sort of like that the height of the to snow from other areas getting packed into it as i went over so that's why these issues regarding word sat do factor into whether they were negligent in their removal but if we're just talking about whether it's a natural versus natural i think the patrolling that not only was snow and ice pushed from other parts a lot but the salt that was put on it but now it's a little bit and now you don't have just mere snow or mere plowing you have a combination of both working in we we did it you mean because somebody inside the building said i found her there that means she fell on the manhole well there was more than that  the employee was working she saw the truck pull up she testified actually that she was concerned even before alice and that got out of her vehicle that she would fall because she parked right  directly or indirectly by defend it and here we have testimony from one of the fence own employees who says that the stratum of ice that caused the fall was created by these plows pushing or at least in part by plows pushing snow and ice into this hole right near the entrance to t have the main issue in that case was was it a natural or natural and that's every step of the way those issues have been litigated and the same standard should it would land on top of these cleats correct answer correct question is more snow fall there would be more snow on top of those plates and she went on and shared knowledge that that's what's happening and then the plow would come through and push it away but what left what remained was what was below the surface level so i don't think that this requires you don't wear your credibility or her testimony against other witness that's simply her clarification that  that's what she meant so and when you look at the photograph you see it's not that these plates are underneath the canopy are some overhang where they would have been free from the snow or ice prior to the plowing and the plow then comes along and moves it on top and you know the suggestion that maybe there's some snow being pushed where you can't have snow removal without snow moving and maybe there isn't snow it was by feet over here in the course of the plowing it gets pushed in now it's  stepping off the elevator in a department store and there was snow or there was water in the only evidence that had been tracked the ending and that's where it ended up still a natural accumulation clear in there but the entrance that's that's where  say i think if it all of the arguments may as of course recognise sort of jump over the spiritual issue of duty and get to a why didn't they put out the warning on it was there what you don't have to put out maybe you know you could have put it out the natural accumulation of its core or is it recognize whether conditions are laid on responsibilities the state of illinois and the whole of the landowners burden just kind of on the degree of slippery or that it's dependent upon the nature soley on the nature of the surface it falls upon without evidence of some other negligence would be a step backward and would create more uncertainty rather than serve this this case falls squarely within the natural accumulation there is no evidence to the