causal connection between the alleged code violation and my client's new looking at the facts of this case i would interpret that to mean that the trial court found as a matter wall that my client's failure and she did not attempt to escape her apartment through the bedroom window was fatal to her car fashion that the code requires that there be an question is as a matter of law did my client have to attempt to escape through a window which was i believe the facts will show at least there is a question of fact whether it complied with the law  first of all she was sleeping in the way or she attempted to escape through a window in the living room by climbing onto a speaker and hitting with a baseball bat found that she could not escape from that with actually told by christian personnel stop trying to get through this because you're putting yourself on the glass the window had a bar between you know you had an opening and had a bar in the middle reducing its effective opening by half after being questioned by  the rescue personnel what other windows what other means of escape are available there she was she told him there was one just like this in the bedroom and there's another one in the bathroom but it's different it doesn't have the bar bill it's made out but they directed her to go to the plexiglas window where she was able to escape unfortunately in in the escape she was injured and that's why she was affected so we have a is no support for that and the code in the language of the code is the same and means in grass rocks haha you get around the fact that she was wrong the bed the window in the bedroom wasn't exactly is not enough to to establish as a matter of law that that window was important because the focus and the coach stop violations cited was that that window did not stay did not have a step in front of it and that's what the defendant is the the fire inspector who actually did inspection in and gave the fire code citation said he didn't measure the window he just other than the defendant's testimony and i don't think that establishes it as a matter of pinion that window is adequate for he chris where is there any negligence on the part of the defendant it depends on whether or not just reliance was reason and that is a question of fact the foreign spector was the step the firefighters testimony that he never measured the size of the window so that  too small too small and it is too small in a way which the window has to be a minimum of eight hundred twenty square inch it has to be a minimum of twenty four inches tall and twenty one out of twenty four by twenty is not going to get three hundred twenty so it has to be either twenty inches wide and forty some inches tall which if you look at these windows clearly it was not or asked to be  about thirty forty four inches wide twenty four works all it's in it no one measured it at least we have no evidence that anyone ever measured that window or five to see whether it came out either before or after the fire the only thing that we have is my point who said the window in the bedroom looked just like the window in the living room and i couldn't get one out of the living room even using a baseball  removed with that two ok so on the facts of this case a reasonable jury concluded that the window was not compliant the the building code inspector said it wasn't but yes one of them had to be wrong and and because one says it comply with the code ones that it did the issue is whether it was reasonable for the defendant to rely on the on the fire inspector and not do other things to the way such tests measure it and make sure that it was large enough and part ok suppose there's no suit against the city or were fired spect but the defendant in his brief on page twenty one indicates that he replaced the window at issue so that it could be opened without tools he testified to that the know the information from the fire code inspector indicates anything about replacing the window or report that it was replaced or that there was a requirement the only thing about the fire code was that step and there was it was a step being tall enough to get within oh so my other issue before the before the trial court was look if you were going to put in the means of a grass in a basement simple but not identical fact that in that case there was a fire in a hotel one of the one of the facts which makes a similar is that fire was started by  someone intentionally and in the hotel the issue was that this lawsuit was brought by the owner of adjacent property because the fire the landlord did not have but when you put it in you have a duty to make sure it works and my analogy is that when you put in a means of the grass that you have to make sure that it works that you have to make sure that the person who is to be protected by that knows where it is and knows how to operate it so they get out in the court found that that was not a beauty duplex do we know whether or not the basement  something is not if it's not intuitive if it's not easy to operate it is not something that says removed by pulling out these two hands then it's not easy to operate doesn't in and do if you can't figure out how to get it open then it's not compliant with the code that you see if it's looks so similar to other windows which are not and basically what it would have to have if it was a slider window one side of it which is twelve by twelve that's a that that certainly doesn't comply if you can take the whole thing out might be twelve by twenty four still this clause so it's not this windows is not in compliance by sorry it's not easy to addresses that it was arson and we're not suing him because he started a fire for not suing him because he didn't put it out pursuing him because he didn't provide real names of eagerness in case of a fire which was similar to  so what we have is an accident which which was more or injury which was foreseeable based on a violation of safety statute that and i agree that the if the window had been twenty five forty one and that there was some way to know that it was different from the other windows and that there was no mark skaife patch escape route anything on there that absolutely the circuit court was correct and granting summary judgment but this window didn't make that meet that this didn't meet standards and my client or persons in similar situation should arguing is that there was a violation of a statute and i was injured therefore your response and it is what he argued to the underlying court as well which i pointed out in our brief he's arguing strict liability he's arguing that merely because there is a violation of some sort of ordinance code statue that automatically liability follows and that is not supported by the case law  specifically what the supreme court found in the couch case in couch the supreme court specifically found that in order to recover for a violation of an ordinance safety statute as in this case there has to be a connection between that violation and beat injury and that's why i believe the circuit court found as it did there was no nexus there was no connection between the alleged violation the injury the plaintive by her own admission never entered the bedroom never attempted to open the bedroom window never attempted to use any tool never attempted to break it the only testimony we have from her is that that window was similar there is no evidence that anything this defendant did lead to this woman's injur she also has to show that this is the kind of injuries suffered we dealt with that a little i think the main focus remains she never attempted to exit the bedroom window she never entered that bedroom window  she further alleges it wasn't easy to open but there is no evidence that she ever tried to open that window in with unable to do so so to argue that i was injured by the violation of the session because i don't think i would have been able to get out of window is complete speculation there's no evidence before this court that shows that this woman was injured by the negligence of the bend in addition it's your honor pointed out my client was told there was a violation or that his building was not in compliance in one thousand nine hundred six he took steps to remedy that situation he was told by the state fire marshal office that you were building your your basement apartment is now in compliance to argue that it's not reasonable for him to rely upon someone telling him if he has to go further than that is requiring more than reasonable care what you're requiring is an absolute prevention of any and all injuries and that is not what the law requires a lot of these facts but i take it that there was that this was a horrible situation was trapped in the basement apartment she was unable to get out of that apartment because she was frantic she was panicking she couldn't get out of the window where she had just awoken from the couch the fact of the matter is however this defendant didn't do anything to lead to that injury that is the only reason he pointed out that he didn't start a fire he wasn't there in attempting to extricate this young woman from the building and he didn't do anything to her injury we're in a totally different situation if she's injured trying to get out of this window that allegedly was not in compliance that is not where we are and the further argument that a landlord has some sort of duty to put exit sign over a window or to put some sort of notification to attend it is simply not supported by any case law i think all of the extra facts in this case take our attention away from what the supreme court says is the focus in this case the focus is was this person injured by the negligence of the defendant her injury connected to the negligence of the different my argument would be to you as it was to the circuit court there is no connection there's no proximate cause between an alleged violation and the subsequent injuries suffered by th it is our position in our quest that your whole circuit court's granting of our summary judgment and find that under the supreme court case of gaps there is no nexus no proximate look and see what the window is but understand what the building code is understood at least some of it it had there had to be a window that could be removed without tools he never says anything about what the measurements from the work have offered no evidence that i bought a windows was the size of the window any evidence to to establish as a material fact that there that the window was in compliance and he