f involved the commission in its decision in paragraph three indicates i'm sorry paragraph four she tripped on what she thought was the first step of the stairs leading up to the north actuates and then fell on particular activity which was in this incidental to her being at the post office sets more that morning in a hurry fashion in fact while you heard it she was hurrying because one of the security officers and one of the well no i'm not going to say that good answer but clearly that was a risk of her point that she was responding to a request by one of her superiors i think it was reasonable for her to do that the commission for some reason referenced the fact that she was hurrying in its findings and then in its conclusionary opinion says the petitioner argues she was hurry fashion again seven times in the record the claimant testified to the manner in which she was ascending the steps and back when i really direct when i started to ask the question about the manner in which she was ascending the steps the employer's counsel objected as it was asked and answered that was sustained by the court that particular manner in which she was ascending the steps up leading up to that point varied the rise vary between five and a half inches and seven have harassed and no two steps were at the same time and the commission says of the pictures the petitioner offered no evidence to establish that the very do you think you have to put in expert testimony that varying the height of a set of steps between five and a half inches and seven half inches and defect night downtowns would that be a matter of common knowledge that it was and in fact this court use that common effect of stairs five and a half inches to seven f inches in alt do you have to testify i fill because the second step is an inch or you have to say that response to a prior question couldn't exactly say which step she was on at the time she fell and that was my dilemma almost showing there were seven steps but if you look at the photographs there's  first steps in going into the court house and there's a flat railing area and then there's another set of steps and it was on that second set of the steps that she fell she couldn't identify it was if it was that first step at the top or the second into the top from that particular  how does it get tied into the stair bergen pipes well the only think that was there were the stairs she clearly said there was no debris there was no moisture we know she was not the judge and the security guard were holding the door that was beyond the area she was at so you know she wasn't talking with anyone or fellow or someone something that they had or anything of that nature let me ask you this is the point of question third alternative sometimes people trip if they fall over their own feet there's nothing to do with anything corrupt that's correct but that is another possibility for them and when you're in a hurry fashion i submit you will trip on occasion over your own feet now she didn't identify it was her feet she hit i think at one point she said i hit something hard i don't know that her foot would be defined as hard and she in fact had on sandals saturday my memory of  the the steps between which two steps did she fall while they were six steps in that set of steps that she was on and she was somewhere between the fifth step to the top and the six steps so that step to the top was seven and a half inches in height and the six step was six happensis in height i'm sorry between which two steps did she fall two steps at the top of that second set of stairs so you have the  seven and a half inches fall is that right correct you say the sixth step is six and a half inches correct is that right ok so there's a it is about one inch difference that you're saying because the  ball well that's an inference i think that was reasonable to infer because normally you encounter steps of equal height and is that of the testimony was the play here and again because she couldn't identify exactly never consider whether any inference could be weighed did they because they just said you couldn't prove the steps were defective that is correct as well which which in other words even though you prove that the set of steps the rise varied in each step over each of them that petitioner did not present any direct evidence explaining the cause of her fall they didn't have to find whether or not that the steps were defective because they already determined shit failed to prove said there was any source for her fall so  to said i tripped over the steps you know because they were very tight she just said that then she got past that i don't even know if you need to say that there are varying heights if she specifically testified i tripped over the steps i tripped on this step i know i tripped on these two steps and later i go back and i show look there's a height difference here didn't it happen here i mean did your opposing counsel said she said she was between the fift six steps and there was a one inch difference between those that did not happen because we don't know what trip what step she tripped on she didn't yours saying you can't read this record and say that you are her possible ok so she doesn't know why she fell and that's true of a lot of people when they fall she says i don't know exactly what happened but i fell on these steps of different eyes and there was no debris there was no they weren't wet or anything else you know so i mean i would just have reached a point here where we were saying to somebody you you don't know why you fell but if you're going to win you're going to have to to be considered all on this theory you're going to have to say it was because of the very  it can't be inferred because it's just a possibility i don't think that's have that's the case at all your honor because we have to look at why she was on the steps in the first place will could in this in this case with fish evidence of this president could the commission have  d that she fell because of the varying heights based on the evidence that was presented i suppose it's likely yes they could have made that inference but they didn't get there because they said you didn't prove there was a wii fit is that correct they didn't get there because they said she didn't present any direct evidence displaying the cause of her fall ok so they said two things they said you didn't prove this is of the fit and they said she fell which is a trifecta do anyway but they said another word she's got to directly say this is why i fell and i guess they're saying you've got to present expert evidence that steps a very high varying height we don't know because she doesn't know what caused her to fall or trip she said i tripped on something i think the step and went down her mind is very big about what happened to me the commission's finding says that she testified because they were holding the north are open for she hurried towards them when she tripped on what she thought was the first steps of the stairs leading to the  and that's the problem with this case there are steps that are exposed to the general public whether or not a defect exists is not necessarily the term in question so much as these she's equally exposed to the thief she's as equally exposed to the defects if it exists as the general public is but it's not a directive telling her how to do her job it's a polite offer from the judge from the judge and the security guard was also there a polite offer a polite offer maybe are why the exercises she did i was simply said no thank you judge i don't want to delay you from hearing your microwave and the court house exist she's no more exposed to it than the general public yes this will be it wasn't her sole route and into the court house she chose to go this way on her own without any direction being told she had to by the respondent i think in the fact on the facts of this case the commission made the proper finding that in fact it did not arise out of staffs nor was there any evidence that public people would run up the steps or in a hurry fashion as the claimant did here again i think when you look at all of the facts and you consider the reasonable