oh yeah introductory part to my next question glad isn't it also too early to know whether or not my ability really will be an issue and it connection with that quite stupid look to the i believe your honour's have focused in on the issue which the court must decide and that did to lower court abuse its discretion in granting transfer from winnebago to carol counties and that's a very deferential standard to the trial court you must find that no reasonable person would agree with what the court did in this case and i submit that on the record before you as set forth in the briefs you cannot so find there has been very little discussion of actually what the court did below which was to carefully go through the private interest factors the public interest factors the fact that the plaintiff's choice of forum here receives less deference as you've pointed out correctly because it's neither their home form nor the location where the accident took place and state here after reviewing all of the factors the court can hooted that transfer was strongly favored and i'd like to discuss those factors because i don't believe plaintiff has given them much attention here let's start with the public interest factors which the court found strongly favor transfer court congestion undisputed that winnebago county courts are far more congested than in carroll county so can we find there that there is an abuse of discretion no reasonable court would agree no reasonable person would agree no undisputed how the connection of the case to the county will he has plaintiffs has addressed the only connection that this case has to winnebago county is the provision of medical treatment the defendant corporate defendant resides in carroll county the individual defendant resides in carroll county the accident took place in carrol county business was being conducted in cure all county all of the first responders fire department personnel medical personnel the police department the police investigation all centered in carroll county so here he can't ignore the fact that so had a presence and go around we are not ignoring that it's a presence sufficient to establish a venue it's not a substantial presence they had a hardware and grocery store employees at that location and that some of you noticed a store retail location while hours i'm sure a lot of those employees were part timers they have nothing to do with what's at issue here we're not disputing it's enough to establish  certainly it is were disputing is a substantial presence such as to give rise to a justification for burdening both the court and the citizens of winnebago county with entertaining this litigation and that really what the court was getting at in talking about the lower court in talking about this medical center because you're going to decide the case that it's not just relevant here to these litigants but to other that against the fact that there is a level one trauma center here should not be burdening the citizens with jury duty and the court with additional cases just because plaintiffs in addition to this plaintiffs will receive injuries elsewhere throughout the state and will come here for medical treatment and again you don't even need to agree with the court you might think no i don't really agree with that but can you say no reasonable person would feel that way because that's what the question is here with no reasonable person agree with the trial court that merely having a level one court carefully went through all the factors that i'm talking about the court when three were talking about court congestion and said that favors transfer connection of the case to the county discussed the connection to carrol isn't enough to say according to the threat of a judge that the citizens of winnebago county should be burger with loves to know what the court considered to that fact in connection with all the other facts and said looking at that alone in the context if there were other connections here the court did not view it as a bright line test is that in the context with these other factors and that's what the court is charged with doing they have to look at the top tell me of the circumstances and said here we don't have any other connection it would be unfair to burden the citizens and the court system with this litigation with different facts and other connections to the court made a few differently i don't believe when you read through the reporter proceedings that there was any don't know how this is going to play out so we're going to look at who are a lot of these witnesses while some of its personnel are all going to be in carroll county they do work fairly they live there or they're in joe davies cap county which is closer to carroll county we're going to look at evidence that's not supported by the record that are you know wasn't even raised people love they said yes we have six witnesses who reside in winnebago county who provided medical treatment but there's no evidence in the record that any of them let alone all of them refused to come to trial it's just speculation and she's free to make that speculation but is that enough to find that the court acted as no reasonable person would in transferring venue i don't believe so and i location of both the defendants the corporate and individual defended it's the location of all the first responders the police department personnel the fire department personnel the ambulance personnel so we have weaknesses who are much closer to even one of the county so we're looking at all of the factors and we're saying at this stage is a litigation those factors strongly favor the transfer because there was this case this center didn't care at county this isn't a case where there's connections all over the place is centered in carroll county and we believe the trial court properly so found and properly exercised its discretion in looking at that along with all the public interest factors i just talked about and saying as the court said this strongly favors transfer and we believe that that was a reasonable finding and that this record is does support that finding do different doses and if you do it with regard to the convenience of the witnesses the defendant did not  put the defendant did is it relied on the facts which this court to also take judicial notice of which is just the relative distance between the different courthouses and noted that it was about eleven miles from savannah where the corporate headquarters is where the individual defendant laufer resides to the carroll county courthouse and it was sixty seven miles to winnebago and so we have the facts here that really aren't just industry to get it's relative convenience and when you look at the distances judges no i don't actually i think he should be applauded for doing some extra research but his findings were not contrary to the published statistics from the illinois supreme court those published statistics which he also cited clearly show that congestion was much higher in winnebago county it was something forty seven hundred cases per judge compared to the carroll county with a twenty seven hundred so there was a huge disparity in congestion based on that alone and then look judge should be applauded not criticised for looking further in the courts are very clear other cases are very clear in saying that the trial court is in the best position to assess its congestion and it's in the best position to make a determination on that and i think the court rightly did that here and again it should be applauded not criticized for it for looking at that matter in depth thank you your honors we rest our traditional verse my definition of fairness i think that's a great question i think you have and look at all of the parties and you look at all of the witnesses and you say where is this litigation really centered and that's in carroll county i do not believe it's unfair to the plaintiff in this instance again that's the whole reason their and they're going to be out of their home that's the situation equally in winnebago county is equal it carroll county but for all of these other defendants who do live in carroll county they will be traveling on a daily basis for the entirety of the trial and that is unfair to them so i think here where you don't have a plaintiff in the home forum that fairness is matter and that's why there is less deference given given to the plaintiff's choice here but now you're not asserting that the test use the quote more appropriate for you that's not the test but that concept of more appropriate form is woven in the case law and so it's not to get it's a not a test of more appropriate but it is a consideration when you're looking at all these factors that's what you're getting at we're is it most appropriate we're looking at each of these factors but the concept underlying those factors is where is it most appropriate that this litigation be tried and in this instance it is definitely carroll county thank you your hon