anybody tries to light the train or traverse the train you're going to be subject to arrest so pretty sister diligently and then after the hour actually now robot goes by somebody from the c t a goes down the aisle says ok we could now well i think just in essence i think that's the theory of the case is that it we're not saying that there was a failure to prevent criminal activity that's exactly right we're not saying that that's what our theories about it's about exactly the failure of the c not sure that there's actual authority to say that i think it's a factual case if there is some out there but you don't have it never shuts i think we've said it and let's get into the fact that the the analysis of this case got to the point we're talking about the same thing is in immunization on the part of the c t a from liability for these sort of acts the same thing or the flip side of the absence of a duty no it's not the same thing did she say yes it was she said it was bad really but there was there was an intentional act that occurred i don't see quite frankly how you could reach that conclusion on a motion for summary judgment in this scenario and listeners not pick back  fact and that should be decided by the trier of fact yes she said that that's not a question of fact it's had it was a question of law and that she could decide it in the summary judgment yes motion yes and i'm not quarreling that would be a question of fraud but the second passenger work intentional criminal acts it was the plaintiff's burden to then come forward with some genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment to show that it was not and play to fail to do that speculating facts are there just more than an intentional act i think the act itself and that act is maybe subject to a different thirty inferences taken from that act the context in which this occurred the empty the train car had emergency lighting there's absolutely no testimony in this that they work on able to see or that these other two individuals were unable to see them both of them testified that they could see other people in the car and that they could see people in the adjacent car so there was sufficient lighting here for two to avoid the argument that someone accidently bumped into her in the dark she is at one point at one side of the door and her husband is at the other and she's going down to sit when a person behind her a tall  over her and then jumps so put her head on the shoulders pushed her down so hard that she had to prevent yourself from falling on her back by putting her hands behind her let me let me ask you this question regarding the intentional first step negligent pushing what what what purpose what intentional purpose can you tell us that the individual that pushed her off the train would is what purpose could someone have in pushing her off the train if it wasn't in fact more likely to have been a negligent pushing because the individuals may be taking too long to get off or maybe the person tripped and in the course of tripping comes into contact with her back and in contact with her back she falls off the train she didn't fall off the train though the first individual there's no evidence required then the immunity statute would never be invoked at the summary judgment stage that has been repeatedly but not because there are certain acts such as pulling a gun such as striking an individual in the mouth or any other variety of acts that every reasonable person will interpret it as an intentional act and this is not that case because we have no one who actually saw the individual put his hands if it was a he  on her behind and he's a tall man which would require him to bed down at substantial amount for him to be able to put his hands being a tall man and push it and push it off the trade which goes back to  justice gordon's point of manifestation of purpose behind that attack and the question is what evidence is there that there was any purpose behind that those facts suggest that he did it intentionally that he did it kno i want to talk about the battery statute but before we get egan says that the stiction now we're talking about section twenty seven by its plain language insulates from liability only for claims based both of you have relied on you in your brief is neither the authority members of the board nor its officers employees shall be held liable for the failure to provide a security or police force or if the security police force is provided for failure to provide adequate police protection or security failure to prevent the commission of crimes by fellow passengers or other third persons for the failure to apprehen security it was about getting off say the other section and it's been interpreted this way is that if security is provided that this is supposed to immunize the c t a for the failure to prevent crime now there's not a single fact in this record to suggest that this was incidental contact the contact that it was accidental that it was a mere brushing these two individuals both of their hands on this really well to the ground and through  we're going to use this crime thing to get out from under the areas defined by the intentional or knowing without legal justification and by any means all eyes watching i'm only harm to an fall she was thrown off the train that's her testimony she said proclaimed when she finally landed is that when she was injured she testified that she fell on her hands when the first individual threw her down to the ground inside the train and she she testified that she saw c t a people fire department people police people assisting another passenger in a wheelchair off of the car adjacent to her there's no testimony that she stuck her head out the door and look for how you make  first section has nothing to do with the prevention of the first section that's just are you saying that this is a general provision for failure to provide security or lack of security the argument here is that there was a lack of personnel standing between these two individuals and the plaintiffs and had there been there would have been no injury there were not going for there were not in adequate instructions here they were told to line up and wait there is an attached ladder so that people don't have to jump five feet they actually can step two feet down there larry there is in every single car and there it is is that it was there was this there was strings instructions he testified on the inside of every door but again these people these folks at the plaintiff and her husband didn't wait their theory was the husband was going to jump down first and assist the wife they were going to wait for the c t a employees to do the assisting  is directly on point and plaintiff has provided absolutely no argument to contest work to argue the court doesn't apply but are to argue that condition versus cost should not be the basis of the decisions for me ask you one quick safety of its passengers and specifically oath this plaintiffs that duty protect our duty but that's not what occurred in this case she was not she didn't slip off of this because she didn't get proper instruction she didn't fall off because there's some defect in the car or some defect in the evacuation process she was thrown off of this car by another passenger and to the extent that bag is the cause and it is the undisputed facts showing that thank you i think you i think it'll be taken under