hundred seventy three nineteen are all exceptions to the general rule in three fifteen that one does not have a duty to control the conduct of a third person as the journey on or you don't move it has been for you know fifty one hundred years small section of three fifteen three fifteen restraints the general do we have a general rule that there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person on or three fifteen a part of the same a what happened in cooper is again they cited three sixteen they went to you know you shouldn't complain and they said you didn't need sufficient facts to create a duty under three sixteen in the second district in duncan said th exceptions in the johnson case and they stated in genesis one his new duty to control the conduct of another person to prevent him from going on to the third person citing the jury rule in section three fifteen with the court goes on with there are exceptions to this based on special nature of a society the holding of it or would have remained the same whether they had commented about three eighteen or down under the circumstances and the facts of the case now if the allegations in the complaint peter stated across which then it would seem that determination as to whether or not they wish to adopt it the correct though you're making an inference about a negative when if it's a negative it could be either yes or no but if it was a positive then they would have had to address the issue and decide whether it was adopted in other words when they just turn and that the cause of action was not n the complaint to be a viable cause of action then they would have to make the next step and determine whether or not they were going without creating correct  by the supreme court and find the three eighteen applies in this case because there has not been a final judgment in this case and therefore res judicata does not apply which means are you going to clear it would you clarify your statement indicate whether or not in your to your knowledge there has been a recent supreme court decision that is that after creating some white house there has not been a recent decision and to my knowledge there has never been any case for the state of illinois that found general rule that nobody owes a duty to a third party to protect them from some other third party that duty doesn't exist but on these four special exceptions to the three sixte obligation to address the multiple claims that are brought before it and i think a court would be remiss if it were to just rule without even addressing more more of the claims in the biggest please i think it is a thorough opinion it's the second district office of the second district has the right decide whether it should or should not for a second this richard determine whether or not it was so it's one thing to say that the second district said it hasn't been it's another best jobs for the supreme court if we don't have the power to how do we have the power to criticize  courts and the conflict that that creates with this national summary of them all that applies in other jurisdictions the restatements of course they're not the law they're not  there was some kind of why if three fifteen cents they did it doesn't apply except under these circumstances isn't that creating the relationship thing no because again the the wrist therefore i think the argument to that extent has been waived and that at a minimum if the poor were to take that argument under consideration then we should be allowed to amend our complaint because it's never been raised