from way witnesses and deposition testimony still present evidence sufficient to show the best this water which repros in ties was from an unnatural accumulation but i do believe with the village they asked was something to the effect of are you going to come into court and give your opinion that this was a call from melting snow when this theory was injury with ice and snow melting from a water tower and landing on a car and testimony from the point of this coworker who told him there had been ice and snow melting from the water tower all day times he was aware there could be problems with falling ice and snow and there he was also aware due to the grade of the water tower this kind insulation mortar would float down onto the property we believe reasonable care having knowledge of the potential hazard created price and snow driven from the water tower in winter months through its supervisor water and sewer the village should have known this problem could have existed and the fair this incident occurred where a large chunk of snow or ice had fallen onto a car form from snout that somehow came from the water tower that was on the village property adjacent to the dealership but what's missing here is any evidence from which a jury could conclude that th complaint that's not something that was argued on appeal that that was in the air and tonight that argument has been waved good bye to it but if the facts essentially break dressed in the theories and the testimony of the expert regarding the water tower that would have cost that the plaintiffs were left with where it was speculation as to the cause of the ice formation and the speculation couldn't support of finding no liability against the different from you know between the gravel area and the asphalt but if you look at the page where they cite this testimony this is the record at seven forty eight the plane testify that the paved part of the property and i believe this was the dealership property that it had been salted that day and he also testified that there were grassy areas that were essentially frozen on the top so that was slippery and that the gravel area was icy but that didn't testify that he fell in this area that had been roped off this deposition and this is at seven forty eight his testimony about this area was that it was kind of an obvious and he was only working here for one day this is  first day on the job it was kind of obvious this big yellow tape was crazy i said fallen off the top of the tower and actually had gone to a customer's car so then they taped it up to make sure it wasn't going to happen again there were no cars and you need the tower own expert and it in his deposition that he couldn't tell that the way it didn't where he felt was snatched at the lowest point if water runs down it would have just sort of come back testimony you know that exactly where he fell but we don't even know exactly where he fell and then this expert says you know in response to this question are you going to get up to trial and say this water drained from the  so without even any expert testimony there was nobody at the scene observing the fall precisely where it happened noting you know any thought a graph showing the water flowing there is nothing  supervisor shows that he was away or that we're counting station withdrew from the water tower in these months that there could be problems with falling snow and ice and that due to the slo