specifically have applied intervening cause analysis in the case of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress i am saying you're not i'm not i i i don't believe that there are any cases which would have applied in the intervening while there's just been no facts scenario that's arisen in this that's identical or even close to t in every case from other jurisdictions and even in the federal courts in which this has been the issue and has received of plenty hearing the result has been that this action the action wrongful death where it has been shown that the defendants intentionally actions have been a substantial factor in bringing about the suicide of the torture victim that those actions have been allowed if so so for instance i'm walking down the street i'm on the sidewalk someone's on their phone or being distracted by music or whatever and bounced and house the curb as a result they don't see the curb and they hit me i become paraplegic and unable to deal with that situation i commit suicide i will confess that on the on the on those facts i don't have a case in illinois however if i'm walking down the street and someone with whom i've previously had a dispute is driving their car and sees me and says well i'm going to give that guy intentionally has his car into my body a motion to dismiss and we said cite judge can always case among others for the principle that you've got to recognize that there is a distinction between negligence an of the plaintiff in the disease so obviously there's intentional torture ever work here and there needs to be a distinction when you consider whether the harder case should be dismissed dismissing count form five please draft an order and then as is mere fact we actually asked her to state the basis and she said i find that the case that you cite was not persuasive it in illinois there can be death well first of all i believe that what the court said specifically there was that in intentional towards such as for all the use that phrase in the whole this is the supreme court and then they say plaintiffs know that intentional torfi users are commonly liable even for unforeseeable consequences of the conduct they cite another case and then they'll say well that's not the law you know say that what they say is what we believe in this case is that the plaintiffs willingness to assume risks in a volatile market was more the more direct cause of their investment losses then the misrepresentation that we're not going to apply that to those principles because we find that their loss was not the the the the function or it's not to arrive from what the defendant did ok but was what the undertook a risk that negates any of these claims and also saying actually it supports your argument that's correct there's there's language in martin versus my hope that cites the principle that even remote seems to be that the tourist if it were talking about were uniquely that the discussion is uniquely all around each issue of deceit tours and they did and it is specially in the context of that consumer fraud that they don't want people to be just willy know i believe that the facts are in other words that the issue of whether i buy a commodity option and whether you actually are destroying the building that i'm  are so different that they don't control it the so that so that the discussion in march is really kind of limited or at least as good as justice to hudson points out is is you're our society imposes liability because we want that just because we're society rules and we like rules and if you if you violate the rules then we're going to get you it's because railroad station person at the other end gets her no possible way that the person's dead even the never injured person could have foreseen that their person over there would have gotten hurt by what they did so that we're going to cut off the liability now the reason they didn't sue the scale maker right even though it's obvious that if the scale never existed and this is paul's graph would not of been cause damage to mrs progress that we've been over determines what we say is if someone intentionally does something if if the if the if the man carrying the package onto the train who said well i'm going to play a prank and i'm going to move over towards mrs hall's breath and scare her even though he couldn't he probably wouldn't of intended that the scale would fall over because he doesn't realize that maybe the fireworks of that pop are that potent never if you have studied f it was a plethora there's a number of cases clearly the trend in other jurisdictions is to allow this cause of action under these circumstances and the federal case was alluded that was alluded to the trial just felt it was not  question there's a difference between what is flat and whether that the cause of action is recognized as a matter of law so you getting into specific facts and tape but they did recognize the cause of action this case to go up later on some type of motion  things and his intent was to make her go bad never institutionalized or ever commit suicide or maybe murder her under a situation that would look like she committed suicide so here's a factual situation would you and send me a supplement to me but anyway the point is that i think what you were slain in response to judge hudson of justice what's in his comments were the facts in the situation were  intentional acts of victualling and destruction of stairs and so on and so forth but there was never any chance to compete for someone to commit suicide is that correct or did i intentional court cases here in illinois martin being one of them with not the only one i'll talk about a couple other sure the second did although that does not strip foreseeability out when measuring the liability of an intentional tort three air accident arrayed in a drunk driving accident then the jury gets to decide whether or not because a she was the reaction or the causation was the accident or whether they both were because it was so but the point is is that when you start talking about what's the problem cause i'm suggesting you that's a factual issue that is not a motion to dismiss with prejudice wellat least not on the pleadings be i don't think the question of what  deliberately did not e paragraphs one through twenty and then say as a result of the wrongful acts of defendant described above nelson or sarah's committed suicide in the allegations distress i don't believe that's the law no worse when we said this here's what happened in this case they did this they did that and i then we say as a result of these wrong did not rule that we did not lead a sufficient cause of action because in fact she gave us she gave us to twenty two times to amend the complaint so and i'm sure she would give us a thorough it was no problem just like a she didn't illinois law there is no cause of action for wrongful death via suicide or survival claims be the case of collins versus woodbridge is an older federal case and is not persuasive in this matter the court rules of matter of