language of the contract the this is the sufficiency of that is does not change with time the purpose of the law of the case is that there are not inconsistent decisions throughout the case with a change of judge and yet that's again the subject of knowledge coming into the signing of the relief that it can't like for example we understand that when one child out of an airplane they're going to use a parachute they're going to jump out of that airplane my flying walking and had no idea their phone hit was even inside of that ship he had no idea that that would be considered a living surface he more importantly had no idea what a foam pit was before he entered that ship and he had no way of looking inside of the gym because the way the gym is designed where you pay and where you sign the release is outside of the gym and you have no way of even looking at what you have to sign with the city every once you walked in i mean he could have decided actually not to participate and in that case i think what's very firm is of course this decision stated very specifically that after seeing the video after reviewing the hands on training to the plaintiff in that case they had an opportunity based on an informed decision to choose not to participate even after signing the release in this case my client never had that opportunity which he did as he signed the release before going in he walked in and he saw it to him as an obvi participant was the safest place to go not on the bar and not on the trampoline where everyone lands on a surface not on a balance beam that someone can fall off of but jumping into a pit full of foam to him he was doing what to him seemed to be the most state activity there and with that said at the gym knows that in fact as opposed to being one of the safest places it's actually one of the most dangerous places and if we look at a lot of the open gyms that are open both for small children whether it be at a job zone type facility or to mass extent the always have someone stationed at that phone and reason is this because it is dangerous and people that are not familiar with the sport of gymnastics don't realize how badly you can get injured even though it's a foam and the defendant knew that and with that even with that knowledge they failed to have anybody there standing at that head so you're saying if someone had been standing at the super road and he did not and that was possibly the fall obviously clearly due to his injury a pillar of his own but it was also the defendant's responsibility to have somebody there and to have the  posted and he was also supposed to be told the rules and the procedures for the various parts of the gym including the equipment there being either a spring board or ball table or a foam head or a trampoline and that was done here and see give the def the benefit of the exculpatory boston when there was an exchange of money and they failed to take the necessary protocols to even the bare minimum of both supervising the facility and providing training to the plaintiffs anyone else part of the contract that's knockout says that i will be given rules that the facility will be supervised and that provides one with a reasonable expectation that there will be a safe place for them to go and participate in more importantly tells them that they will be given its own type of training with a safe place doesn't mean no accidents can happen correct it does not know but it doesn't mean that there has to be proper supervision and looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff there was one person you know very very large area checking stamps out the door and nobody inside an entire facility where there were thirty to forty participants no you're not seeing the behavior to read the way to saying back he did not read the article i'm in there when they should've been there to make him see the argument that having that someone's free choice whether or not they read an argument but whether or not one reason are the reasons that i'm sorry rees the release we still have to correct but it would be like saying you know that a trampoline is only ending service but are you aware that there's a trampoline in there and he had no idea that a foam hit was contained in there and when you're talking about a novice participants understanding of gymnastics a foam is not it would be to see one night cereal where it says prior to that exchange place to describe his exposure to an understanding of gymnastics activities at the time he had executed the really question have you ever seen a film before know what about a you didn't know how deep the phone was is that correct yes and you also you weren't aware of how to properly jump into it but he stated very clearly that after the time that he signed the police what his knowledge was as opposed to reading it now after what happened do you understand what that means and i don't think that that's the same thing because the standard isn't what is you know after unfortunately this horrific accident happened to him but what he knew at the time that he signed it defenses perspective so who are just centrally was stating i think it's a bit premature console defense counsel at this point for you to pursue this i'd like you know for s to six nineteen motions where there are other affirmative matters and the courts are taking they have got to give the plaintiff their day in court to some degree by allowing that discovery to pursue and in this case discovery injuries occasion from other users of the gym again not relevant to this case but it just goes to show how specific in the studios this release is mysterious is a nice way of saying it it don't know how he missed it because it couldn't be more conspicuous and the only reason i'm taking on this argument is because it takes up a great majority of our a substantial portion i should say of the plain whether considering that argument and it would be as though if i did i suppose very generically there may be some inherent upfield to that argument but he didn't just jump into before you get started you know counsel brings up a very good point some very good points i mean other than the color phone why you see a case you have a lot of case law for dead is working against you with respect to makes a release over a very overly broad and makes it very difficult for someone to really understand and hone in on what it is that the defendant's liability is released and i think that's what happened in this case i think the participation it doesn't say inherent risks that the person has the subjective knowledge in this police is very clear in saying i have no knowledge of the inherent risks it doesn't say anything about going beyond that and i think that's what makes this release so different more importantly the various cases that your honor mentioned as well as in the same case we're talking about activities that are to the general public when you walk into a house you know there's going to be a lot of different machines are you going to know how to use every testimony is that he jumped off of the spring board that was in front of the phone and it was never planned then he was never on the ball to oh no i have a hard time understanding how a three hundred pound young man is going to get from on top of the table on the train just so i can tell you it's not the easiest thing to do to climb up on that think there's no stairs there or anything and with all due respect the testimony of the one of the witness who stated that she saw out and i think that's really the key thing here and again i understand that this release is two pages long i understand that it is longer than a lot of the other releases and counsel calls it a studious release but again were comparing too in depth i think that the fault of this release is twofold the first is it has too many clauses it talks about the physical ability to participate in talks about one's own knowledge of the inherent risks but then when it does deal with the specificity and things like this risk upon myself because i wish to participate i realized the main subject to injury from this activity and that no form of pre planning to remove all of the danger to which i am exposing myself  much more explicit in addition to the two pages previous to that how much split again and again it becomes an issue of first the ability and the first the ability is what did he know at the time that he signed the release and case is the fact that at least the person who got on that track and had been driving cars had race cars before it was aware of what a trap looks like it was aware that there are walls that one drives through that one can crash sign it and what's your understanding of the inherent risks of the time right before you take on the activity that causes your injury and even when he was standing on that springboard jumping off he had no idea what the inherent risks all they have to do maybe simply was put in you know how deep it is it's less deep how tall he is or they could say hey here's a weight restriction on this something so simple as that something that's on all of quitman in every standard chair across the united states that's why they have this is how you use it this is you know if you're above this weight this is what the weight restrictions are and they didn't have that in this case and you get this are usually little tiny people that are not six foot two in a house over three hundred twenty pounds like this person was and when they saw him walk into the gym there should have been some extra care there possibly and that's not right and that's a question again that you know if this case gets remanded back to make to the jury with regard to supervision but the question becomes did he know what he was getting himself into did he know of the risk and did he appreciate the type of injury and that's what's clear from his deposition testimony that he did and it's exactly what was in his affidavit that was the basis of charles webster's r