shows it is to the contrary the animal shelter had a policy in place at the time that members of the public were not to place their hands are any part of their body into the animal and he just went in there but what we're saying i mean we are really saying that he didn't have a legal right to be in that room if you can look at the animals in that room placing his hand into the cage th right to be if there is no notice requirement here for there i don't think you know this is really necessary work common sense dictates that you should not be placing your hand inside of an animal and i think on the website i know the plaintiff is saying it's common sense that i should be able to put my hand inside of the supervisor of the stock will attack you you can't take this dog for you you know i don't think that they do and i think that that's not a typical policy of any animal shelter that's obviously not in the record here you know but i do think there is a difference in taking the animal outside of a tahj or the policy rather than you know i mean these animals may be scared they're confused they're giving us cage alone and then something's inserted into the cage than it coming out and being in the open and i i think that's the whole reason for th policy here i also think that the considerations made by this kind of judge in making this ruling were improper what she did if she looked at the whole situation in the world the way the world works  today which isn't necessarily consistent with the statute which i think it's pretty clear she also relied on a case called kirk first as well which is what she claims she based her decision in what you can consider whether they had a legal right to be here on what the plaintiff reasonably expected now the appellate court does not address this jury instruction at all even saying we're not going to address that because the plaintiff never made which they waive their objection all of this so then what a trial court judge here is uses this reasonably expected standard it in our case and i don't i don't think that was proper that's not what the statute says further inc r that issue the issue of walking this was a question of fact that went to the jury which certainly wouldn't be proper for the summary judgment motion and she said that's what she based her decision i'm more importantly the intent of the animal was no way for her to know it was a residence and you know the whole building should be assumed to be for business purposes and the point is attempting to relate back here and that the whole building here with her business purpose and i do agree that the building and the room were mean there's been there's been no no legal authority to rely on my player showing that we need to be provided notice of our policy and it is the plaintiff's burden to show that they were in place if they had a lawful right to be in the statute doesn't require notice of  automatically have the right to stick my fingers into a cage so that's your position i think under these circumstances yes i think i think you know what we want or expect what about these circumstances break that answer  because he was on a place where they were offering dogs up for adoption so he went back there to look at the dogs to interact with the dogs they also even said if you want we'll take the dog out of the cage and you can spend time but what would be the difference between that and having the dog  staff would go there could tell you that as opposed to a claim that because i'm permitted to be back there with the you know those cages oh my animals are receptive to my sticking my fingers into their cage that's your position is that i think the animals would be depending on what you view i think it was brought up earlier so snarling you know guard dogs in there or is it a dog just sitting there with his you know head or mouth  the trial judge can decide this because no reasonable person could possibly different i don't know that well isn't that pretty much the standard no genuine issue of material fact there's no generation material fact peers who could other building animal and quite frankly that's not a reasonable this valuation to make whether or not he's contribut statutory violation of the negligence claim then the issue becomes did your did he not have a lawful right places fingers and no reasonable person could conclude that his doing so was an public there there's no dispute that he's allowed to go back into the kennel where there are you know literally dozens of dozens of animals and dogs it's a pretty good sized place and he sees a dog that he's interested then and it appears friendly he goes over and puts his fingers through the cage and tries to pet it how is that any different than the person who maybe comes to my house or even come to my business i have a dog there who's maybe in a particular room and i just think of one once you're in my home once you're in their animal shelter i see no reason why why that would be off limits or that would be on lawful for him to be there an awful trespassing by putting his fingers in a cage  had a right to put his fingers in the k g wasn't particularly law or trust passing by putting his fingers in a cage he's really trying to have a dog that he has an interest in and i think under these circumstances if you were in  person they're trying to duck the dog it's reasonable that you're going to try to make some kind of a contact that's why people have that so they can have that interaction and that visible contact