122 s.lely tlu plaintiffs (2) in "a defect mt wu dffcult to of its of significm surrourding or ly rt a which to " Id_ at 202, 732 N .E_2d at 600-01. Relying follcwing "As I Wadel trottmg towud ISU V l, at night, stepFd into a with diffe it to it, it There of fmt jwy to to Wade s Narional is misplI distinguisluble in dispute to 405 Ill. App_ 3d at 17-18, 938 N.E_2d at (if a dispute ng a cmditicWs lighting, qtion of is is Altimgh W s implio a disvwte les at 2014 Wa s fcy tlut trottal a %ubtle with tlu saxling " We tlut Wufe signiti on claim tlut ( l) did mt mt down (2) if slu down trotted to SUV. avoided the In this Wufe tlut if it is tlu dom. a fmt as to of We any i by Ballog v. City ofChicago, 2012 IL App (1st) 1 12429, 22, 980 N.E_2d 690 is OFn delms tlR Wwledge of a r.ble plaintiffs " City ofChicago, 349 IIL App. 3d S l, 86, S I I NE2d 364, Simply we with Wules affidavits, or dents filed in this supp-tal a that at ly lit, , a which by a mding_ a clew, dry nught in 2009, trotting ht to steJB into a tlut a of a In tlut le w trial tlNt why if going. with t's mlis_ we tlut circm-stm. a Wnies intelligm. avoided tlu by