and we still see it then you know so see if you're not given the over to the other counsel table if you but i mean do in this case possibility it was not that of anything happens i think under the circumstances of this case where the defendant increase the risk of harm to the person then i think that the consequences of plac protection district was created to serve the public at large and well established in the state that the municipalities serve the public at large no one individual in the public entity cannot be held liable for about our failure to do things we were how we get to deal from training to force you entry to raju other things that he said your firm recently had to do so i think in any case we do have an affirmative allegation of a duty in mrs homans attorney i believe that that case is smoke and mirrors here as the supreme court said n j and zero three the public duty rule is of no moment in that case and they went on to using their word emphasize that their holding in jane doe three was limited to a finding of duty under the bridge to killer circumstances that were presented as your honour's no those circumstances were that teaching authorities or school authorities deliberately falsified and employment verification form of a teacher that allegedly they knew had been guilty of sexual misconduct the court said that in analyzing a duty we must all analysis of duty and to work case turns on policy considerations they then went on to say that  has a specific policy favoring the protection of children against sex offenders and that that particular policy was what wait wait in favor of finding a duty under the particular  people who are serving the public welfare generally into the insurers of individual members of the public we by extension here we don't want i make everyone involved in the emergency telephone system or e m t's the insurer of every particular person who may need to call nine one one i would also like to address this  people who participate in operation of that system towards individual members of the policy the supreme court specifically rejected the proposition that a governmental immunity statute can be read to create a duty they said that in village of bloomingdale that was cited in our brief and the first as strict reiterated that holding in there where case  zimmerman also instructs says that the existence of duty and immunity are two entirely different matter as as the third district said in donovan first you need to decide if someone has duty towards someone else and if you find a duty it is then that you get to weather and immunity of clients so it is not true somehow implies that there is a duty as we have heard there is a special duty exception to the public duty rule so it is conceivable that you and the courts have applied the public duty rule but they may find that the special duty exceptional wise and it is only then that you get to whether or not there's an immunity under one of the statutes here i think it is very clear a the circuit court found the special duty exception does not apply none of the defendants had any immediate control over mrs coleman during any of the events that led to her unfortunate death and certainly for oral and fire and mr johnson they had no unique awareness of her medical condition or her medical emergency for those reasons your honor there are no questions i would say that would request that you on the argument that the actions of the defense increase the risk of harm to his will and you'll find that phrase increases the risk or more will grow i just brief in almost every argument every section of the argument but i think what's missing here is that the voluntary undertaking argument fails for a more fundamental and more rational reason and that is that the actions of the defendants in this case enough and he says or volunteer they are actions that are taken pursuant to a regula statutory framework and there is no case law in illinois in one cited by the plaintiff certainly in which a municipal or a government employee has been held to a standard of voluntary undertaking for doing something that is required in the statutory framework i think the amicus brief in this case is very instructive for the case of the defendants with the amicus says is that there is a duty here and this is a direct quote it is not a duty to do anything other than what is contemplated by the e t s after the message that i think is an admission of least in session that what we're talking about here is doing nothing more than the statutes are you to do and that's not voluntary housefull focus on this distinction between virtuous or for compensation that's true that's in the restatement the voluntary undertaking can be something that is done to reduce the use or for compensation but merely having done something for compensation doesn't automatically trigger the fact that it was done that it that it wasn't voluntary and in fact he says we cited the fiqh tell case silicones cases in both of those the insurance inspector of the insurance company and the other they were doing actions they were being paid like to point out also on the with regards to the the public judy rule i really think that this case is very analogous to the case that case was handed down at a time when injuries to members of the public in this case you have an eye when one system it's not mechanical failure but it's a failure of the transmission of information the information didn't go from one person to the other just like the because we know it's an uncontested fact that by the time the college transferred to eric johnson it orland mrs coleman is no longer able to speak which is a very unfortunate fact but the reality is whether lori's and said hold on or not public duty rule it cannot it could not have been intended to apply to every single public servant peculiarly united one one setting we're talking about state e t a employees highway workers cutting grass on the side be back of only lasted for hours and those that most went out and live in the hole in case it's an antenna went down in mrs coleman signal to call for nine one one couldn't get out and that affected everyone in that uriah and he reasons to impose a duty here and i really hope you do for at least you know please by your decision that might help a lot of us later in the state addressing whether or not a person who calls and i am one one can ever have recourse