outside again this motion was brought prior to her just proceeding through any sort of expert or additional testimony at this stage so i think that her testimony alone is safe to tell you what weather conditions were like what the condition was that she of the property that has been in existence long enough for to find that you were in that condition the property owner doesn't have the patience to be cognizant whether conditions whether that might pose a slippery hazard if it's west where ther  at what temperature something for example we can take judicial notice of because it's so commonly known i don't know the supreme court to have that level of common knowledge i think it is sufficient there was ice here and i mean i thought we were back focusing on the ice and the fact that the snow melted and then on the ice for so everything and then we have the unnatural accumulation because of the dangerous conditions but i don't know that we're there yet with respect to the judicial notice that justice berg was talking about and i understand rush point and i to measure i brought to discount and also brought to trial court was i think i slipped on ice about it see it and the condition of the parking lot was to cheery curry and that she takes the deteriorated condition oh of this driveway area that was peaks and valleys and that feet it was i'm natural because of that dangerous condition and the peak so again it vice now here in this case there's been no that testimony that the pope if stepped into a rut a depression something where you would commonly look at a surface where water would accumulate have if nothing else whether they call it a bomb or whatever you want to call it and truck or play this out it's a racing surface is a surface that's where she steps higher than the surrounding surface so we don't really i mean it doesn't make sense really  a by the kind of mini association there really is an explanation there i mean you could have arguably melting snow at different places where there aren't necessarily homes or ridges or an even an even surface levels that they happen just by the way that the sun comes down just to the thickness snow snow doesn't fall evenly is falls on evenly and you can have some places where the snow is a little lighter right next to places that snow is really heavy you know we've all kind of that's common sense that we've all seen that and maybe there's a lighter spot where the well the wharf just seemed to melt but there isn't an explanation given by the plaintiff either through expert testimony or weather reports or combination that would give us an explanation accumulation i don't see any pieces of the sites that show where they have been even surfaces in the snow melts and it's hot in the higher level surface with the court ruling or the ice on upper level surfaces on the actual i don't condition of the driveway in order to make that finding that the peaks and valleys the waves would you please give me the st part of x i just said wouldn't she it's knowing up and what you said in order to conclude that wouldn't she be having to ignore you don't have an expert coming in here saying to some something about the slow or or measuring these home vs the surrounding area and coming up with either a scientific based most scientific based and in will occur unnaturally and the fact that it was a race surface just that if there was the melting and refreezing the water into ice who would have not been on the step in which she i also noted at pages seventeen and need to have your brief i knew i'd seen the someplace you indicate the court's conclusion that the plaintiff fell on the quote flat surface close ups of the driveway's wholly unsupported by and in fact directly can contradicted by the evidence a deuced in this matter and therefore provides a factually incorrect basis for the court's finding a natural accumulation of ice so that was the court's specific