as we prepare this disposition she will also listen to your argument so please make sure when you speak here speaking clearly so that she can hear sometimes we don't have the best audio and so take you off you or your script but is there anything in the complaint that alleges faulty design fault be construction faulty anything that would d to the design of the store but i mean really if you think about it that are saying that there needs to be some evidence to determine what's relevant like a natural accumulation and then there's a duty to either give adequate warning of that condition or should repair it so there is a question of facts so circumstances but at this point we're just asking as your question of fact didn't go to trial and there's enough circumstantial evidence in the record to show that it was more likely that it was more probable that that water was caused by so you know and the court court found that the statute of action one is on the statute or expressively creates a cause of action which there are some out there that do if not you can imply it or you can use that statute is or amended didn't changes it to but he wasn't worried about dollars fines or anything of that nature to be checked very bright but i mean i guess so so there are some previously i haven't really found any case law for there because there are other common law remedies that will be played at home such as that create a face and neck that is like there's a bunch of the nuisance substance was sold or produced by a landowner you can also look at other circumstantial evidence council would overturn natural accumulation by only well lying on circumstantial evidence that's the key difference  donahoe say you have to have the evidence that it is related to the business and also circumstantial evidence not just circumstantial evidence in this case there is no evidence that we sell puddles of water right we don't sell puddles of water we sell do low handed i believe massachusetts is or massachusetts or maryland it's one of those and states out east have changed now they have gone away from me because it is just too much trouble which at tends to be a good argument it is too much trouble because what's natural what's not is that the ice that formed as a result the night before when it got cold and we didn't think it was going to get cool what's natural could be could be in massachusetts  law and as a preliminary matter i don't even believe that most of the arguments i counsel presented should be her they did not raise the unnatural humiliation arguments that they raised in their briefing today in to the interesting theory there's no evidence of it as you are pointed out there is no evidence there has to be some evidence right in order to proceed basic you know rule summary judgment is it's meant to avoid you know wasting time for lack of a better term when the facts are such that there's no other conclusion that a jury could read good could reach in this case there's lots of theories i give counsel credit for putting forward a multitude of theories none of which are grounded in evidence you have to have some evidence are all understandably i'm naturally humilation those are things that the landowner did to transform a natural a humiliation between the natural none of that happened here this is a simple situation where it's raining or snowing customers are walking in and bringing in natural humiliations from the outside what about the potentially conflicting statements from either the store manager the front end manager a cashier and then you're matthew who was responsible for the cards one of those and i thought it was the store manager said well it was a way out and everybody else said that that's different and manager said i checked periodically and  being taken care of but that you other employees who were right there at the time of the fall said oh we have was whacked i mean you know we we have this conflicting issue between the store manager and i understand he or she wants to stay the store manager so they do their bass but didn't see it and we have these two people who didn't see it but were paying right away after the incident and there was water you know i think the great majority of the evidence if not you know depositions of course it's much you know later some people of god or members are of the same i don't think there's too much dispute in the record that this was a slip and fall on a wet floor so i mean you know taking all the facts in the light most favorable to pla and this is a slip and fall on the floor and there's you know there's a variety of theories that i think that points to again they had every opportunity to provide evidence supporting their theory and they did not do so i'd like to of years of case law and precedence and column law on national humiliation it's not meant to allow a living against to circumvent years of common law to pursue a private  that in their brief in the trial court later they said that was a mistake that was a typo in the brief before your honor's they say it doesn't matter what you said before this will really mean it actually doesn't matter because it evidences their intent was negligence per se it would certainly would cause problems with the language of the the ordinance they agreed with this does not intend to abrogate or changed and he stayed mum but i think she did or whoever argued at the trial court level did make it clear that it was just evidence strong evidence if they could meet the criteria of why this stay fifty regulation was in place and two that their client was one of the persons who should have been or was designed to be protected and so does that change the language of the the ever geisha in language that wasn't in the b jack and  i don't think it was in that other cook county case either but i can't remember the name yeah i think so i think it's clear and i think you know it's easy sometimes in the hall you documents and he's like to make things more complicated than they are this is simple there's a local or local ordinance drafter said specifically we don't want this to overcome state law we don't want this no fly state federal law if they want to they would have said so they went out of their way to say yes this applies to our buildings here and to that there was water in the only way the parties could eat grass because this was not like wal mart where everybody's walking in the enter and marking out the you know they're walking in and out of both internet exactly they don't know the difference in the words and mr that it doesn't do that so doesn't imply the reason it would imply that as your points out is if the act itself was not an adequate remedy whether it didn't have fines and whether the type of relief  worry about the motion to compel the design issues of the store i know some evidence was allowed about incidents that may have occurred at the store you did you were object to the other any other evidence or any other information being disseminated because there was no evidence that there was it was a fishing expedition for lack of a term there was no evidence of anything else  in our answer their counsel made some reference i think what happened was in judge have having shopped at target say oh i thought there might be some construction i'm going to you know perhaps a while ago there was no evidence of anything else so you know the court gave counsel opportunity to pursue that they had every opportunity for the court's order to hire an expert to come back on a motion they didn't do any of that and it's hard to allow them now to do that all this time later when they were target actually is going to say well the problem with that is that the one major issue that i think would have been raised was with the carpet ends and where the the tile begins and  around that's pretty obvious just looking at isn't it means you go do a target store you see that there are carts in there and you see that those carts exceed that the car producer of the there link goes past the seeking they were seeking evidence of the renovation of the store they had every opportunity to seek information of tiles and rugs that's what happened during discovering what they were seeking was additional information moves alleged renovation that question effect again as to whether that accumulation was natural and even if it was was it something that i had done the clean was a significantly different procedural posture to it the jury understand their common knowledge well without these blueprints to look at how can we determine whether or not we need an expert to help the jury understand the whole whether it's up to the jury or solve so the update there weren't you know construction cones on earth over there or something to show that because of this renovation there was some kind of defect in the floor of the of the rollover towards targets book couldn't you have seen