misunderstood analysis and quite frankly i confess that until i was reviewing the law to prepare this morning i'm not sure i quite understood it i'm not sure i still understand we have to find the first before we get to the and they didn't care and they were travelling around on a t v and then they went in and they had lunch and then they came out and eugene shows up grandpa and says to austin we're going to  individual specific act that could infer that no one eugene knew they were there knew they were coming with him and asking the course of events took place knew that they were helping him where he was cousins were there and they started driving around the a t v in the field and then according to eugene friends of austin as the hate wearing get higher and higher and higher jerry and fifteen year old would get on the wagon to help conveyor belt twenty today they did this evolution two or three times between the late morning and the early afternoon bad day and while they were making this hay on several occasions according to your genes test what is the position he is of a farmer who allows young people to participate in farming activities by the choice becomes responsible for their injuries if they're injured at stronger or but he didn't he didn't own the t v it wasn't his vehicle no sure it was not his vehicle it was his land and they were involved their operation it was towards his benefit he was the only person that not only could think a whole series of things are important one is that he was the adult they were the minors number two is that there is a statute that allows him to actually authorizes him to preclude the use of an a t v on his property  of the do the analysis is the relationship of the son of those four factors the foreseeability of likelihood the bird and the consequence once that occurs if you decide that there is no duty fund our position there is a duty in this case and the defendants were saying no we're saying under the special relationship or mode to you you know this there is a duty but if you go back and look at those  i and i can see for instance if you go three year olds you can't take care of themselves then you're the only adult but you have more of a duty to three year old fifteen year old boy for all the difference guest and the question is whether or not the landowner had some type of duty to protect the person the individual victim who got who got her what we're suggesting in this case judge is that even though h v and even though jay jerry was driving and jacob was a passenger ultimately when the accident took place we're suggesting there's a direct responsibility here not some type of responsibility for any type of upon again the relationship between individuals based upon the fact that they were there visiting his grandson based upon the fact that he took his grandson from the farm based upon the fact that they were not anywhere near their homes they were located two to three miles forcing them to stop they wouldn't have found themselves on crossing the road at the time of the accident this is a series of events judged and what happened in this case was that the boys often knew the road which was the side of the field was on but because of the specific facts of the case what you had to do to exit the field and get into the barnyard was you have to actually go out on the perfectly road went down into the ditch but then because this was the third evolution at least the third evolution of this pain hate making operation speculation that i have is that the boys in order to get into the well again that i think would be factual question for the jury to answer for those words yes we believe that during the first couple of evolutions they did follow the work of the entire way how do you know they wouldn't i don't think he could have but i don't think