it came down and there's ok and so in this testimony i think the words rolled up our guns yes and that's not entirely clear from a what that meant but looking at photographs of the soldier course and then the sidewalk service what you're saying is that you put his foot up on the soldier course and it actually took away so that the joint between the soldier course would then require that you establish that the step was loose prior to his fall yes and as i gather from the record the only evidence of that is your client's testimony that he believed the step was lose from t boy i think there's in terms of the testimony all the defendants deny that it was so my client was walking out for the first time in his life and he didn't visually observe anything that was out of work or but i think the photographic evidence is what's key in this case but again that's a photograph taken after the fall so it certainly doesn't depict the condition part of the hall yet his weight actually was on the step to become  then that would be shot that a condition that shown in the photograph would be evidence that there is no photographic evidence of the condition of the wall prior to his fall whereas the that's right and the expert your mortar was deteriorating but did he indicate the mortar that connected the soldier corps to the main walkway was deteriorated or was he commenting generally about the  in the walk surface that he was coming specifically about mortar in the area that should have held the soldier of course to the other bricks ok oh is it more of an inference that you're saying this or should separated from the main walk service product of your finds fall yes yes the difference from the photos shows in areas where my claim didn't stop on that border is not securing other bricks within the so when a person just stepped on them with one foot that shouldn't exist on property because then it can be to injury and the video that's in the record demonstrates from one of the and you have testimony direct testimony by the of the occupant one of the occupants of the of the home that she would sit on the step that they would traverse the step and there was never any you know of residential one assumes to ensure that a feature of the property like this isn't dangerous because i'm trying to figure out what they should have done to determine that perhaps the stuff might be prone to tip this area that's dependent upon the order should be put in place it indicates to us that this was used before this happened i think a jury could come to the can you clarify that for me with respect i think i was trying to find that out too i think that mr henderson did not visually observe for this incident happened a problem and that afterward the court's or bonding the soldier course to the course of bricks that compose the walkway at the surface and up and therefore it wasn't loose if that was my understanding of the conclusion of the trial court room and then itself where the occurrence happened where this soldier of course a brit to instead he talks about the generally deteriorated nature of a walk winds from as and how that's not a good idea to have that type of walk but can turn to that is while we know there was no actual cause and i suggest there's nothing to indicate by the nature of this alleged defect since it wasn't reasonably dangerous without begging the question your honor that that they should have no i don't think anything constructive ways matter fact they lived in that residence for some time they said they sat on a perverse that actually the plaintiff your version of the same day this cohort and i think through his own amazement actually showed what happened after the fact so i don't think there's any set or any facts present that would constitute constructive knowledge or would allow the jury to determine that they could other than jet speculation and conjecture the public policy issues  anything to that just the public policy or that you have to impose that by such a defect speaking to that odd it didn't find anything to do with the effect of which is complained of today if you review that maybe a general ca remote suggestion that the mortar deteriorates and it will deteriorate end up by gosh that's why we have codes but nothing about the actual cause of the cause back of the trip so yeah we know that more deteriorates we my perspective of the cases and close you know i didn't discuss them in this role and i didn't discuss legal defect in the brief but as i sat there i realized that maybe somehow at least inferentially these issues may have something to do with this case weeds growing up mortar missing here or based strictly on the photographic evidence alone the homeowner should be suspicious of any other mortar joint and whether or  have a reasonable expectation over what they tell you if they know that there's someone you know prior incident easily i think that that's that's the case it's really a case of constructive notice and i don't think there's anything that would give them the construct have notices that perhaps not every one of wood but i think that an architect that builds or design structures that lived there for ten years perhaps could but i think the defect that they would have think that there's notice of that dream and find actual we think there's ample evidence of constructive us oh i'm when your honor was looking at the photo which had a chance to look at ere being a finding of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk a lack of evidence demonstrating on the part of the homeowners because they didn't possess actual or constructive knowledge so in