here in a written agreement and the key i believe moral statement or admission by michael butler was that he for grief it was his responsibility to the only potential evidence in that it's the testimony from mr butler is that he had been out at the parking lot at approximately five am this morning when it was dark and he had sold the lot he didn't check to see if he as use or perceived as simply an apple contractual obligation to do something that wasn't fulfilled i think under either of your questions it's based on the contractual of it up again do something that wasn't fulfilled in the only other as strong against holy angels the only other factors i would say is the holy angel runnin and that point your honor is that there was testimony that mr and mrs korean advised the bereavement individuals  morning service remember this but he knew or should have known about these two funerals scheduled that day and then he should of gone out to see that the parking lot was safe he understood that his obligation his an obligation for him to pursue their own to know that or sunday morning these are the standard masses i see your point but how does you know what i think you should know i think i think is part that since we're dealing with an oral agreement i think it's something that you should know whether that's an obligation on the church also to advice them if this if this incident have been on a monday night where nothing was going on and  different case i believe i think if you look at the facts we have to call on monday afternoon to see if there was anything scheduled i think that there was evidence in the case about what the schedule was that week and that did come out  isn't he actually doing this contractually for holy angels who and then entity is doing it for the safety of the parishioners in fact is mr butler a butler l heavily salted that day and he testified that he was not instructed to ever walk across the street to this parking lot which was the main parking area for this church if anybody's ever been to holy angels that's where you park in the entrances across the do any other conditions that might have contributed to this to this situation in the kill case it was lighting it was poor lighting was there and this was daytime right right in front of the church which is right across the street from the what appeared to be heavily salted in the parking lot did not appear to be as heavily salted or it appeared to be wet so whether if it's a stretch to say that there's a there's an x a big drop off or a difference between the condition of the stairs and the sidewalk in the parking lot i think you can extend that to that kill versus was argument that get from the parking lot to the courthouse to the going out the street was a sheet of ice and i went down you know right into my car i mean you know it's so there there were all these things they are good might have caused a fall although we know he was on the parking lot correct you know i think that in this case extend or allow this are fine if there is an assumption of a contractual t d in this case as the word has identified already clearly that we're dealing with is a oral agreement to support entirely the argument that there is an assumption that the duty to remove i guess in this case is the deposition testimony in that question the answer was it your the salt out and so they turned back to butter correct ok so there is it there is an initial timer and her brother did provide that service and the church attempted to save costs and we're going to do it themselves and then your craft and then there was a c a year  o'clock funeral or minutes before was it an extension of this albeit very limited contract to solve again right and i think actually that i wouldn't matter if the opinion towards the end addresses that specifically be out there and the soft any time there's a night that develops we are taking to the assumption or this assumption of a duty to even observe result and i believe that's also addressed in a where towards the end of that on what's reasonable under the circumstances so as council says it may be an extension of the contract to solve all times but all times is judged in terms of what's reasonable deposition testimony and that again the agreement is that they will sought when there is i guess and do everything ultimately the argument being that they would have to be there any time with the  contact mr butler with his services with the church and he did not supervise mr butler in any way shape or form it's quite him with any of the equipment or salt or tools that he needed to accomplish this the  create some assumption of a duty in this case with respect to the church at all zero say death five not is there any reasonable expectation which i know is not the language of this  chisel case that's discussed in the claims one case as far as i can tell from our research is the open to instances where nonfeasance has ever been discussed in the state of illinois i mean i think it would be extraordinary to suggest that somebody simply by contracting to hire someone to remove the ice and snow if they fail to do it has just a subsequent doubt that suddenly your life that they just didn't show up to do so the northeast it's thing even in that context consistent reliance by the plaintiff an expectation that it's always been done there's no evidence of that in this case whatsoever there's evidence that the plaintiff came to home angels church on other occasions for other services and so forth but there's no indication ever came there for the winter they ever came there for the it's petition that snow and ice would always be removed from the parking lot and the other component of that case the science that sort of reliance you know through a course of consistent history even claims one where the caretaker in the past himself testified that he didn't remove snow and ice from the stairway even that wasn't enough in that case to create the reliance so we already closed that here and then the other component as it there has to have been something you did to make the situation worse that it wasn't if you have done nothing that's why there's no reason serious such an awful to me it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the law so from the standpoint consistently across the board it has to be performed negligently and created a hazard there has to be some fall made the situation more dangerous make it worse that's utterly absent in this case there is no condition for which there is no liability so i just measure with it's it's almost circular the argument in that context so i think ultimately what i would say is a there's clearly no contractual basis whatsoever  if there was any other condition as you pointed out just such incident par from the ice that contribute to the small that's not quite the case with the loose stones of the snow it's not like the case with the bad lighting there is no other condition on the property that contributes so there's no basis there apart from the natural evolution and then finally we come back to the question of public policy you know and even the supreme court has recognized you in a long time ago but i think it's still it's true in our area of the country that you know we won't be able to go ahead and take the firmest death to hire people to remove your ice and snow and that's something to be encouraged that's not a reason to hold the church while because we hired somebody to remove the ice and snow for the convenience relied on the near is a significant amount of evidence that holy angels relied on butler and stones to make their parking lot safer as parishioners on the day of this occurrence but it did is there anything in this record ice just like there was that evidence and i clear and that's why i think these are so intertwined admittedly stronger against butler and sons as opposed to the church i don't think this is an abs d result i think that this case depends on the facts of this case interservice will be if my client have fallen for a three am on a monday night or some time when there is not an expectation that anybody should be out there looking at th parking lot the facts of this case create the expectation and i think of opening with the neural agreement there was a specific and mission that applied to duty under the facts in this case based on undisputed expectation that one hundred percent of the ice would be removed but there would be too much of a burden if you apply this to this case a new you acknowledge a duty to solve the ice whenever whenever there's ice in the parking lot it would be the same the intice a patient is to remove all the ice but if they're so there's going to be spots here there that's a different scenario from what we have in this case where there were significant sheets of ice covering for parking spots as well as other areas testif