helpful that we have a transcript of the trial court's ruling that there is no question in the record that there was negligence and that there was a violation of the multiple safety statutes that public safety statutes for the state of illinois regarding premises owners who choose to have public health d in general welfare by providing for the stablish men and force women a minimum minimum standards of for safety for all swimming pools and i'm i'm going the only swimming pool in bathing beach kodiak states that lifeguards share a mandatory share which was the intent of the legislature show provided all pools in persons under the age of sixteen are present without supervision by a parent or guardian or a responsible choose to do that you must provide a lifeguard that's your one choice the other choice is to prohibit sixteen year olds from coming in the pool without a parent guardian or responsible adult and in that case if you do that and do it properly you have a right to post certain warning signs no question it's a red herring by the defense there's no question the signs were posted but that is not to be ate their duty in order to have lifeguards present when they customarily in this case allow children under the age also this if the trigger was only dearest there's no question there is who seventeen there's no question that he'll only swimming in that pool the statute requiring lifeguards would not apply but in this particular case there is didn't at all we ghouls and water soils and then go on to talk about other situations correct i don't think of the carmelite yana i believe out of this particular statute it's very clear that it does not allow sixty five or sixteen year olds to previous argument this morning we also have to look at the more specific purpose statute which would control over a general statute in this specific part in section eight twenty point three hundred states that life parents shall be present when children the age of sixteen are there's never a lifeguard on duty in those hotels have their doors open to their people or stay here to their gas they push the sign but there's never a lifeguard on duty but young children go in the pools all the time but there is even a properly posted sign which is the common interpretation of the say if you're not going to a lifeguard you better have appropriate signage and your honor my answer is that i do not see any now that you post signs your theory but also that there is someone there some person who he's making a determination this person is over the age of sixteen or if i wonder if you're with a parent guardian sibling who father you want to bring your five year old come on it if the five year old comes in by himself can't come in that would be in compliance with the statute if they allow the five year old to come in without his father then they have to have a lawyer also let me  they had a system in place which had a check in system as you remember from the record the full attention requiring them to show an id that they were a resident of the apartment complex that big city were prosperous that they had to sign in and they had case in their peculiar case they say that because they didn't have a v a i don't know if it was a ramp or something that was necessary and this person who was not a handicapped person got her was not covered in that particular case that would be a specific n and i didn't care person would not be covered in this particular case was fairly unique about the statute and what's unique about swimming pools and the need for requirements of lifeguards is that the list later has said in specifically and in swimming pool cases in a minimum standard remember this legislature suddens wisdom this is not a burden on businesses or landowners that they have to have they can do want to do things you don't have to have lifeguards but you have to some system of safety and a commercial of the apartment complex the policies are in the record judge they had a what a two page document to call home regulation that they posted and gave every resident of this although marked as an exhibit it's in the record and that included recitation specifically section eight twenty point three hundred and specifically the on ice only facility act and stated that they would have to be in compliance with these acts so and yet they never hire a lifeguard because they felt they were heart of the case and that is whether or not jerry this fall within the scope of the protected class of persons as outlined in section twenty of the beach code and he clearly does not answer colder states you there are centrally three or four things that need to be three or four elements and need to be met first staging needs to be on the station or in this case of the code the regulation needs to be one dealing with the safety of code the intent was in discussing lifeguards was to preserve the life of the individuals that were using the pools especially individuals over onto sixteen years of age and then the third well that last part of my answer the third close of the third on the third element is whether or not the individual is complaining of harm is a person it's consider on or the protected class of individuals under the statute or the code and here derrius because it was the then if those are our own rules then there are a hundred twenty cases in my brief that i cited saying that you know an entity's a violation i guess if if this is considered a violation of our own rules is not that is not does not impose a duty of one man particular party a legal duty and is not evidence necessarily or negligent but it isn't strictly the question the same didn't go with the goal of the case were the the sixty seven year old plaintiff who was not a handicapped individual who fell down the stairs issues walking down the stairs at the very same time with an individual who would be considered part of this talking about enforcement this code does not put it does not talk about the owner of the pool having to have someone there to reinforce the provisions so if if we take if we take your owner's responsibility to appoint someone to enforce these provisions but it doesn't say it so i'm going to also i don't think there's anything in the writer that shows that there were children th these he even argue that there were six children in the pool at the time by all accounts by the by reading the testimony of the poor tenant ritual in the testimony of coral  being coral coral to the pool our testified under our testified that he was never he never went to this pool without his sister worker or without his father that's in direct contradiction to what the pool owner to have an attendant to ensure that there's no one under the age of sixteen i agree that it was safe to say how we're supposed to administer this law no question most states don't that's up to the landowner to do it appropriately and not negligent pool in closure which was the enclosure of the whole fenced in area there's no question the record shows the people that i've done to fight in my brief were in the pool enclosure they don't have to specifically be in the water at the time of derrius drown so that's a red said they did have the full attention they had check in system they just didn't do it right in the brief couple minutes that i have left i've also like to address the blankenship argument sixteen year old case as i put in my brief this court the second district recently in the last two security then you fail to do so regardless of who is harmed you are still liable in toward to a particular injured individual is exactly what we have here though we don't have a voluntary undertaking and the trial court found  what about the specific language here the policies the policies of the apartment complex pool were not to allow children under sixteen in the pool on must they were accompanied by an adult that was the policy correct so they did not fit within the definition of a pool that allows children under sixteen correct no but this a point their policy was inconsistent regulations identified a code that they will be following the cole so as far as that goes yes they would be in violation of their own policies and procedures because those are exactly consistent in actually incorporated by reference the statu