very unusual court and to some degree there is a great deal of legal issues that have not been yet been addressed by the appellate court because of that however before we get to any of those particular issues which are very interesting and and potentially could allow this court to create gone in the syria we need to discuss the threshold inquiry of whether or not there was because the trial court's order in this case was a finding that there was no duty on behalf of the defendant and as such there was no yes there was no of harm absent duty there is nothing else the question of duty is relatively straightforward in this case as i mentioned this is a longstanding well accepted tort not only in the state of illinois but throughout the country it's recognized in both the original re not have the authority to do so and there is a case we caution parts where an ex wife was found to be legally having potentially a duty that she violated when she interfered with the rights to the true next of kin which is the son of this and his after the autopsy he bury unfortunately when he was received at the hospital this product is not properly labeled or identified as a result of this and as a result it was misidentified as another individual was transferred to a funeral home and cremated before the air could have been discovered plaintiff originally brought suit against three entities the hospital is security firm that was working security in the hospital and who was responsible for as the status of the law which is a very broad encompassing general duty on all individuals establish that they did in fact have a duty the security company the facts we really show was responsible for receiving bodies at the more they were responsible for sure ensuring that those bodies for label and that they were had an identification that was visible on the body at all times it is undisputed at the point in time that the body left the hospital there was no external identification result and butler funeral home came to the hospital and said we would like the body carol securitas employees brought the problem body a body inside of a case with no i didn't find marks on it whatsoever and said here you go this is the correct body now defendant was adopted nearly one hundred years ago howard that is inconsistent with the general evolution of the law in the restatement as well as in how other states have responded to this type of tort as well as how illinois tort law has a upsetting that can get to the family when your expectations of what is going to happen to you by your loved one is upset and so when it comes to a policy point of view it favors adoption secondly statement and this is very consistent with the state of illinois which has when when you have a case for next infliction of emotional distress how do you deal with that how do you not allow that to be so all encompassing that almost any scenario would qualify as a policy and the balance that was struck in illinois with  argue that they had a fear for their own safety or that they suffered a physical manifestation of so it just would not be possible and that's why this particular case because the context is somewhat unfamiliar it can be easy to make it seem as though it is more complicated than it is if we try to apply the elements for the facts and circumstances of other more familiar tort that can't be done we need to see very very focused on the type of work that to sit and that is the the wrongful interference with the right session and both parties have cited to relatively few cases because relatively few cases do exist now with regard to this particular type of tort it is worth noting i think that there is a very generalized duty applies to anyone and there remains the facts the defendant has the use if there is evidence that would explain it that would explain their actions in a way that makes them out not liable has nothing to do with whether or not referred to as summary judgment light and that is where the moving party would bring in some other fact or evidence through affidavit or or or the pleadings or some other document there was no set of facts whatsoever that have to say fifteen most no your honor the five if i may try to explain under the we kept separate arguments between two six fifteen two six nineteen three but the arguments are similar in the sense that the two six fifteen motion as you point out goes directly towards what was alleged in the this case is unique we have the the third amended complaint there was factual discovery that occurred the court a request with many facts and documentation produced during discovery that was not considered as part of two six fifteen when the court ruled on this in terms of two six nineteen looking at this and the issue is due to were the plaintiff and i differ is how you sufficient facts and it's my understanding that the trial court in this case in the ruling ruled not only under two six fifteen but the plaintiff and failed after three attempts to police official pounds but then went looking beyond the four corners of the complaint and looking at wasn't up to six nineteen days your honor i can't i can only tell you what how the court ruled we have the order that the court entered we don't have the factual argument presented or the court's ruling other than allege willful and wanton conduct on the part of my time there were no allegations whatsoever of willful and wanton when we looked at the factual evidence in the case in terms of what happened way of affidavit or deposition i would say that you you are able to consider those simply because they relate directly to the request for the facts that was ten were the responses to the request motion doesn't look like we have either light or i can't disagree with with what you're observing what i'm saying is that in response to the motion to dismiss the plaintiff put forth a request to admit facts which reference the very documents that are exhibit c so the issue was not introduced actually by the defendant it was introduced by the claim but maybe we weren't allowed to review those either i would submit that i believe that you are because of the nature of the request to admit facts ordinarily in cases where you have a two six nineteen motion you haven't been at issue to reach discovery yet this case is somewhat unique in that there was some discovered that was conducted  that discovery that was relied upon by the plaintiff in filing a response if you go back and look at the motion the initial motion was not did not have those documents attached it was only after the plaintiff introduced those in their the if i may the issue about duty in this case is not a generalized duty it's a not a duty under negligence the issue is about the duty to refrain from cited by both parties in this case under illinois law has helped that now there's a discussion about the restatement section eight sixty eight in the second restate both of those came after the one nine hundred fourteen decision in one courts have not adopted those and they've been given the opportunity to do so i believe that there are two reasons for this one is because the court sufficiently addressed this issue it back in one thousand fourteen identification about the remains on that issue it isn't see it's it was never secure tosses responsibility in the complaint does not show in any way that it was secure or tosses responsibility to identify the remains of the body securitized people are supposed to a sport that body to the more they complete a large ship once they do the task is done in this case of if you may charge one to perform that task guards three and four form that task with water carts five and six facilitate butler's pick up of a body in a ziggler case now your outer respectfully there's some discussion in the briefs about what constitutes a zippered case and whether it was cited in the record it was cited in the record previously on the motions to dismiss it was instructive for the court in court took notice of that this is a good case is a steel box it has no windows it has no identifiers it's meant to be sealed so as a result security council officers never opens the identifier for the spot when the security department for him and see tells them the duty under negligence standard we look at the duty to exercise ordinary care the duty with respect to interference with the right to possess the body you see is the duty to refrain from will on one conduct that was not alleged in the and i do not have a case the i will tell you though if we go back and look at the history of this case this is not the first time this issue had been dealt with by the school so we're on the third amended complaint the issues all what was art the court ruled that mere negligence is insufficient to sustain a cause of action based on case law on the issue was willful and wanton conduct in the guise of the previous complaints that had three seven issues good faith please in order to be able to plead willful and wanton conduct you have to have a good faith basis to do so under the facts that is known to the parties in this case there's insufficient acts to be able to ever sustain  situation court's already granted a motion to dismiss on your neck instead the issue is you have to sleep with one one that's what was interpreted by the court that was the cause of action that was argued by the plane on the plane actually conceded in their briefs that they had not but willful and wanton and the arguments provided in their motion to hear the response the motion to dismiss were in essence to ask or to change the law to disregard the law from one nine hundred fourteen to disregard the law all the way through to i believe the last case two thousand and seven and instead in each one of the cases that were cited the standard that the courts apply was will on one plane it doesn't handling of the negligence cause of action below the court finding that there is no cause of action based negligence and if you agree that the second statement torts the law allows for removes come out with holes comma mutilates or operates upon the body of a dead person or prevents its proper internment or cremation is subject to liability to a member of the family of the ceased who's this position by to your point the word negligence obviously appears in the second restatement but the question is what does that word refer to i would submit to them to the restatement they use the words intentionally recklessly or negligently in reference to remove withhold mutilate or operate and in this case we did not know there is been no pleading at all that we in any way mutilated operating and that's where the majority of the damage when you have an issue about the value you see the rafts when when we're talking about preventing proper in term securitize did none of that whether it's intentionally the butler will be there to pick up the body in the circus and then the task of the security officers to meet the butler representative at the loading dock a short them to the pathology department where they pick up the sick or pace they take the and as you see from the record it's undisputed the body of william carroll was placed in that circular case when it was brought in the apology or so was the body of water we don't have to obviously in that case and counsel has provided a number of his factual assertions to fill in some of the blanks that quite simply are not within the the any of the items currently in the record on a lot of the information this court that is why supreme court rule one ninety one aide says it is so that you're not just given a bunch of documents and counsel are allowed to tell you what they need but so that the actual individual sit with information about those documents and the palace procedures and all of the statute for easy reference for the trial court that is that is well within what is permissible and is actually desirable trial court level to do that where you are referring to a statute or ordinance or or some other action was mistreated code the court might not have readily available to it obviously that is perhaps becoming less important pewters but nonetheless it is a courtesy to the court and it is permissible because the court may always take into account the existing law the court may not necessarily take into account the fac