the exercise is the supervisory control in this kid's situation and sort of the puppet so that the suppliers are the ones guiding the puppets and so even though they're out of work the strings are still attached to what's going on in their home and everything that's going on but more importantly the enemy who truly isn't about fault it's about who has the ownership who has that status and it's in and or proposition and so in this case we can't release the homeowners because they also have control and at the somebody coming into your house what in this case establish this kind of control in the explicit you know direction is to the agent if you will to the person there at the house that would make the owners liable here even though water now and usually give them instruction you know home or nothing dogs because someone's going to be coming in today and so this is no different than man and this is even more it's even easier because it's something to happen every monday you see anywhere between bleach it would appear that both corporations or both businesses are independent contractors and once you disagree and if so i'd like to know mine and if they are independent contractors none i don't see how we owner who isn't present during the work or services provided by the independent contractors could be him under  company all of the things that they were doing were doing were being done at this specific instruction and in a specific way that was told to survive seriously it's not really the homeowners who are liable because they hired somebody it's because you're saying that they gave explicit is kind of a red herring because he did everything sean did everything that he was supposed to do based upon instructions so you know he was supposed to enter the are only if there was no dots present there were no do a kind of externally in your hands decision that they're supervisory and physical control and that's what you're analyzing whether there's home ownership status especially if there's two parties involved and in that case the woman took her down to the vet clinic and completely turned the dog over to them case because that's really going to guide the decision about who's in control or not and that's really consistent with your analysis in haste it's just in hazing and it even we were trying to seek out monitoring the other it could have been both in that case it just ended up being the best so assumption the risk cases that they found such a risk applies their child has direct contact with that animal they're taking horses and get thrown from a horse well that's part and parcel of your job if you are hurting cows and you get trampled that's part and parcel of your job in this case which on assume the risk of is maybe getting to collect from the fecal matter that was the risk of his job his job can include the risk of being attacked by dogs when his job has nothing to do with interacting with dogs well when he didn't ring the bell couldn't he assumed that there was a risk that the dog might be let off while he was in the yard no and i think that the danger in the trial court no not at all because first of all ringing the doorbell is not part of what he's supposed to do his job was to make sure that no dogs were in the yard so whether he had a brain about whether he was in the yard i saw one of the protocols if you were in do this in the risk of being attacked by dogs simply because somebody let the dogs out on them but that can't be and then we take that one step further that it becomes due to social relationships do they assume the risk because they  shlomo whether or not you handed a proper effective complaint isn't as important as whether or not at the motion for summary judgment you argued we presented material issues of propensity and i would be curious as to how you would refer to your own client we can use these dogs never been your client they only ran towards you correct right so we only dangerous testified that they had seen the dogs if they saw somebody on the other side of times they would come charging up to the front teeth baring brawling and they would the only thing that would be protecting that person essentially was the fact that they were there was a barrier between them which is exciting excited things like that and so even through the preparation for the deposition careful preparation even the careful avoidance of the word aggressive we're still able to listen to testimony that they did do exactly what they did to sean many times and that they took the precaution to try to prevent that by pointing out from the house by having the shock collars having the electric fence and rooting in the charcoal or among those charging dogs different than a running dog or a dog that just  parks because there's somebody outside there's a difference and i and i don't want you to think that i'm asking you to say that just because a dog barks or just because he runs in legs tail that that somehow a mischievous propensity this is different this is charging this is bearing teeth  crawling this is intimidating and that is different and that is a mischievous propensity the veterinarian assigned one of them to determine one of them to be aggressive so all of those things are facts and so they have their facts are that we have proven result are you going to go first about the additional evidence that osha thank you instructions as to what times to let the dogs out here respective of what's going on but a very detailed list of protocols with regard to the dogs ok are we saying or is it you are going to get me totally irrelevant who made the decision when to let them out into the backyard and we had no reason to know one way or another of you know the it would be done with out  out and we have no reason to know because it never happened before that we knew that they would be like alcide to do their business or whatever without without anyone checking first to see whether someone might be present you know there owner and if the dogs got out if there was a just the same they got out in the in the dollars were not home dollars are still liable even if they had all kinds of security and all kinds of precautions that would be responsible in this case yes the doctor's visit to let them out but the dollars were the ones who put them there and they're the ones who could have easily coronated the schedules to make sure that this didn't happen really wasn't discuss to the walking service so i don't think what might be the best argument for an exception to the rule relative to relinquishing custody existence keeps oh i think curious to hear your and nobody was home and the dogs again running up against the window confirm they're inside while he's in the backyard the dog walkers arrive and then let him out in the still doesn't assume the risk of being attacked by dogs issue a fact in this case would be on the one hand they're saying that he was doing something that's related to a dog because he's giving up the dog poop so that he's aware dogs that's really the only thing that ties into the risk of being attacked by dogs other than that there's nothing about what he does that is related to one that caused him to assume the risk of being attacked by a dog the