typical electrical cases if you recall this is a single family house owned by a family fetal reclined that wind down the back that lying was whacking against the overgrown tree in the back of the property causing volts of electricity the shock did not respond to those earlier calls and those describing the shock or the electrical sparks being given off when it's very windy conditions and  causing the homeowners to even fear sleeping in that upper bedroom if that sort of makes it ok to take things i'm going to go look up my windows out of trim my tree i think it's bad i go out there i engage some activity i get injured i would agree with councils position that how can comment be on the hook for that well they've been told over and over again well let's let's let's measurement is forty two require us to trim the tree and so there's a difference of opinion comment says no trimming just required the homeowner say absolutely trimming is required how does that get resolved well i think that  in our case specifically there was no question that there need to be trimming when the con that individual came out he made it a mission that yeah you better call back to the office that's what the deposition transcripts indicated from the home what did that mean yeah you better come back to office a problem here what did he say well if he was there to actually trim it or arrange to have a trim why didn't he simply make it rain i hear your honor i think that's a great question that should be pose to commonwealth edison or at least perhaps a jury to look at that let me ask you question what is your response to the traditional case law that says that there is no duty when there is an open obvious danger well i think that my responses would be would be to fall well would would would would limit myself to the deliberate exception to the open and obvious danger is handgun first of all it's normally applied in a employment or similar economic compulsion situation and hasn't been traditionally  for purposes of this argument that there was some sort of economic compulsion here and let's assume now that we have an exception to the open and obvious danger elect those people who are union carpenters strap a metal able or around one of those people explain to me how they actually go to the curie is a jet li reasonable and  because common law edison was in a better position ok for the sake of this argument justice let's assume the commonwealth edison was aware and knew that this was an obvious danger that someone co i agree but the deliberate and outer exception of one has generally only been applied in an economic situation which we really don't have here but even if we assume that how do we say that jury should determine or fact finders should determine that strapping a metal table around one's waist is up yet if only reasonable were were assuming we don't throw out open in obvious because commonwealth and state didn't you know respond to them off the back and doesn't go away at least i don't think it does so i suppose if your complaint is if i'm understand the disregarding the danger you know it's open enough and yes we have this exception in the law that allows for the idea that people will self help built up down the branch but don't they have to do it in an objectively reasonable manner can they simply take a metal table disregard all respect who says that the way that they did cut the tree was well there's about ten different cases in the brief that point out that when you're dealing with electricity there are certain things you don't do you don't conduct christie yourself which is what they were doing when they attached to the one man's torso well did they think that there was also a question and i guess i'm i'm i'm i'm i'm backtracking a little bit here but there's also a question of whether or not these people knew correct how do we get over all these presumptions the danger of electricity the danger like wires and then this you know wrapping up the cable around the torso i mean that's what caused this right if th many experts testimony when there are multiple cases that say that you know the danger of electrical wires is open in obvious to everyone even like twelve year old children rather's case law out there that says that you know that when like the the case of the individual stuck his hand into the metal and metal box of a reasonable man of average knowledge and understanding and they found that his placing his hand into a metal tree is proper is like i said ok i kind of understand sort of i just don't know how we get yes this one hurdle of whether or not there's a question of that and how their system just doesn't work it's a farce they do not their job is to deliver its electricity and power safely if they have these systems in guidelines and tree trimming feeder lines and all these things set up  systems and everything in the north i'm off if i call comments said i've got a branch that sparking that should be handled today within five minutes they should send someone out they just ignored it they'd nor did over a long period of time so  surface right justice and obviously we disagree with that issue well i'm just saying i think that's the i mean i believe that you know you get past everything you're still with left with what has traditionally been considered open abbie's condition like  there is an exception that has been used in economically compulsory cases where they're actually doing something because they're wired to these were people that worked for this fellow i mean they didn't get paid if he's out there on  con ed isn't the situation where i decide to trim my tree walk out my back yard just decide to do something it's a situation where they knew they would turn because standards they present to the certain government agencies about how they're going to trim the trees it's an oak tree it should have this type of clearance growth and all stuff like that all those things they have all that in place all in systems inspections post free inspection trim inspection all these things and they all fail that all that was ignored  dangerous wires can be common those that some homeowners are going to want to take matters into their own hands why shouldn't comment be held to respond quicker it and it looks like they did respond but they never took carroll and binder there it is limited to reasonable foreseeability duty extends to events that are objective leave foreseeable not out there in the more remote conceivably might occur  so let's say yes to question commonwealth edison gets these complaints were square and summary judgment so we assume all the testimony is true what is the scope of foreseeable responsibility that's been reported is that a tree branch thirty feet in the air is is the complaint what is coming with us and thinking about when it gets to complain it's thinking about the possibility of damage to the few right and in the worst case it's thinking about ok well if this branch is heavy enough and if the conflict is repeated enough and severe enough maybe it could bring the future wind down i think that's a reach that i think that is the scope of the reasonably foreseeable risk and if that were the scenario here the question becomes who should take that risk should the homeowners take that risk that that feeder line clip in fact drop or fall or come down because of repeated ban coraline did not in fact come down until the plaintiffs themselves got to fifteen foot walk that's that's the actual circumstance here betty whenever this phone call said about the danger out there and let's assume that some why should we assume that comment is going to respond more favorably to that sort of requests and the requests that it should be responded to which was trimmed the tree respectfully well let me make two points about that your honor first of all a call saying we're going to go out there and human beings are going to get out a lift and be within a few feet of it power line which up until now is three feet in the air a good distance a standard distance well insulated from any passers by on the ground that's an entirely different order of risk than the complaint the commonwealth edison guy but those phone calls whatever they said whatever risk the homeowners appreciate it or the homeowners fear nothing about those phone calls changed in just a week later the affidavit from the cite where there were multiple calls to the utility before the accident happened like yeah i don't i don't believe there is an analogous case the cite is usually the one that we go all over the line and i think judge tenuous was correct in describing the conduct here is so extreme and so outrageous judge it's clear when what's not objectively reasonable is not necessarily that the willingness of the homeowner to take matters into their own someone come out there from combat there was testimony to someone from you know someone came out there from combat why didn't that individual begin the process of whatever was needed to rectify the problem as opposed to putting the burden on the homeowner to make that one more phone call while to do one more phone call the even come up here guy was out the certainly the inference that could be drawn that he recognized the problem and he said i may have better come out here and do something if they let's assume that it be true for purposes of summary judgment and let's assume that you ed you know didn't respond that doesn't make the open obvious character of the the danger presented by that high voltage wire any less open obvious whatever self help the homeowner  to choose to deal with still has to deal with that their problem it is still eight or ten surely fatal danger that exists out there in the real world and it's certainly not objective lee reasonable for commonwealth edison to expect a concerted multi stage set of events to tokyo where the homeowner hired out construction equipment and took a look at what is or that was twenty five or thirty feet in the air and got up close and personal with it and selected a conductive material selected that metal cable and manipulated then within just several feet of this cable this was the creation of an entirely new here as there was no danger to mr  farsi and from that sparking twenty five or thirty feet in the air the planners created an entirely new hazard they conducted electric electrical his are from thirty feet near down to the ground the history that was called in the commonwealth edison that's the public policy issues right here that are right on the head as they say the first thing counsel said was a big concern about the phone call is damage to the feeder never came up about safety and how someone could