stated the wrong standard to review and then went on to analyze the the facts and the law in the case from the eyes of the most favorable to the moving party the home inspector stated that the roof so bad that he couldn't even get to other parts of the roof that he didn't talking about more specific area is awning as it was described and i'm the inspector did not inspect that portion he did not mention the awning specifically and his report and he indicated that if there were problems with that or sion that he would have noted that that and i thought that the inspector indicated that if he had seen that he would have no record he did state that but he also stayed in and has room for it but he didn't he didn't examine the entire roof because the group was so bad oh all and worse the homeowner was aware of the condition of the roof the homeowner also knew that they only replaced a small section of the roof so they didn't so something failed is that right correct what failed there were nails and screws holding the awning and two up to the house be either aware of the defect or have constructed knowledge of the deep that he knew or should have known of the defective condition and you've got to hone in here we have to hone in on what is it that's a ledge to have been defective and i have to say that reading through the record in this case i can't identify where it is alleged there of was a specific defect and can you point me in that direction this is the first time  i've heard that maybe that defective condition related to the fasteners screws nails but is that in the record is that something that an expert looked at this and said there was some occurred due to a condition of the property but what it appears you don't have is an allegation of a specific defect or evidence of a specific event so can you hone in on that is there evidence of a specific defect portion of the group but he did state that the group is bad he also stated in this deposition that you know the entire group appeared to be the same age so that there was in one section of the roof it looked newer than the other i mean the entire r appeared to be the same age and that the you know from what he saw the same amount of damage on it and that you know and and the homeowner with aware of the condition of the roof and he did fix a portion of the group think it's more important that he didn't fix this climbing onto the roof the defendant engaged him in conversation about the repairs that he had just had to spend over a thousand dollars on and he he blamed the power company and the defendant in this case was the distraction and they're there for the distraction the exception should be the biggest the biggest reason why we believe in this matter whether or not there was a defect is a factual issue that the jury should decide whether or not the distraction exception applies is a now first of all to address very quickly whether or not judge ford played the wrong standard in citing the motion i think that this was a typo that's what he called it he clearly has a experience a competent judge who is considered cited i think the courts made it clear what the issue is here is whether or not there is evidence that this on an had a defect and that's important because of support stated the homeowner responsible for taking care of a defect of which they have actual knowledge or which they have constructed now without knowing what the defect even is it's hard to assess how the plaintiff or how the defendant  had actual knowledge or what clues there might have been that would have given him constructive knowledge one way of salvation obstructive not to say the condition has existed so long that they know or should know we don't know what  until after the motion for summary judgment was filed an expert's report was produced and his report seems that the the mere fact that there was a failure of the awning is proof that there was a defect but he doesn't identify what that effect  nine quote there was a condition on the roof and the room was improperly supported with steel ties as opposed to steel ties in conjunction with wooden beams or additional support which presented an unreasonable risk harm to the point of close quote was there evidence supporting of that allegation that that was a condition and further evidence that it wasn't the fact  that approximately resulted in a line of senators well i think there's no question but that there were not the same spot extending down order to the ground or upward from the ground to support the remote corners the  know what they're talking about a beam unless talking about there were not games going supporting the going end of the interior of the house and i asked the plaintiff about that i said is that is that what you're trying to say and he suggested that maybe that was it the beams and isis could you tell that there were not exists no i couldn't tell and so that puts us back in the same spot as my home on earth how would he know whether or not there were beings going into house where they would be  before or some sort of book or up against the side of the house group into which it was mailed combined with the cables that were going from the front corners up to the house and those were that he had a duty to assess the safety of his work environment he says that he did do that nonetheless they accept her but none of this is evidence of my client just a homeowner of less than a year and a hoarder who did not create this on no reason to believe it was defective because for him it's not leaking the life works it provides the kind of protection that he expects it to provide which is minimum protection from the elements of a little bit of a lumination when he's trying to get in and out of that door offended i mean to the player as much as to the to the defendant and i don't think this is really how an open obvious case but the distraction exception certainly not apply because the distraction exception says that the owner of the premises is aware of the dangerous condition but has reason to believe that people on his property will be distracted and forget about the condition and fail to protect themselves now here not knowing what the defect is if it's open obvious to one who is standing on top of or getting ready to step onto the line and that's where the distraction occurs according to a counselor as he's up on this ladder looking onto  getting ready to step onto it and that's a perspective that there's no evidence that the defendant ever had and so the defendant as the owner has no reason to believe people will not recognize or will forget about a was out there knew that people would be carrying large boxes and might forget it here we have a condition that the defendant is ignorant of if we accept that there was an open obvious condition eric once fanning on top and i think you accident which showed all around the rim it showed places where it was depressed in it and we don't know if that occurred any accident or if it was present before the x ray of specter was saying if i saw that kind of condition and i were noted and of course my point in that question is that if the the train electrician is going up on the ladder and looks over and sees the state of disrepair of the cave and that puts him on notice that i should perhaps stand says state of disrepair but we have no evidence that my client ever knew effect condition existed prior so we have no evidence my client