a specially when the defendants had knowledge of prior incidents of similar incidents and injuries occurring as a result that ruling must be reversed and since th carrying her from her school through bus off of which she then would walk from to her aunt's house is that right that is correct from a liability standpoint here from the standpoint of analyzing liability in this case does it matter that she was coming home from school does her status as a student company did contract with the school district to transport the students home and it knew that it would have students on the boss not only knew that they would have students on the bus but knew that it would have unaccompanied minors on the bus and the most important fact in this case is that this was the first time to rearm or had ever written i mean this will boss the limo driver no there no bus driver didn't know that the time but the bus driver knew that it was the start of the school year and the bus driver knew that there might be first time passengers on that bus because the bus driver knew that as part of his role as the bus driver he was transporting school children from the bus from the school to their home move from school on their stream to well with respect to the bus company when it did contract with the school district except that the responsibility as a comic carrier to transport the students from a location where the school cited in my brief once someone does exit the bus it changes to a standard of word mary here so but while she was on the bus absolutely it was a sure and that's why i think that the warning is important and the trial court did that correctly and frank that is the most important part of this case the failure to warrant where the trial court occurred is that they took it away from the jury and the warning in this case impact of the car striking those are also a sign on the rear of the bus for vehicles train or bus alerting them that children things that they could have do to help warn these students of the dangers of crossing from the bus the only one that they didn't act is that they did put a sign on the back of the bus after this it's happened that this wasn't a site in the back of the bus the time of of whether or not the bus company can be liable in this case of presumably this exact same scenario could have played out with the minor child being saturday on her way back from  this would have happened in february this happened in august she would not have been on that bus but for the fact that she was to get home from school to the location so it's best up for liability and you don't want to go there she could have been on a weekend writing this exact same bus and have done the exact same thing and the fact that it occurred in those circumstances shouldn't call for any different analysis  asserting that bus passengers should have been warned of the danger of crossing in front of the boss best correct and given that they did actually talk about six ways that that could happen that they could provide additional warning a better warning than one that was provided was obviously this warning that was on the bus was not adequate because in two prior incidents in the same year not the same bus route two children crossing from the boss and were struck  pastor traveled in this particular case i submit to you is actually a red herring because regardless of whether or not she traveled at forty five degree angle or a perpendicular angle she crossed in front of the bus that was the issue in this  she didn't go twenty yards down the way and then cross it from the bus she got to the corner of the bus and then crossed whether it's forty five degrees or perpendicular she's still crossed in front of us that's the warning that she needed an warning she didn't get what is the warning you're so asserting should have been given there should have been a more adequate warning as there is evidence that the warning that was given the sign that was on the bus was not sufficient there were other additional factors i started to specifically what should the warning have been well the warning should have specifically up i mentioned the dangers of crossing in front of the bus and should have been a proper inadequacy of warning no expert testified on the sufficiency or the adequacy of the warning itself but actually an individual that the defense presented indicated himself that he wasn't sure if that particular warning that was inside the bus would be sufficient to warn passengers of the dangers of crossing in front of the bus so they themselves weren't sure about warning signs the warning signs that they don't know where was on the bus on that particular dating should be able to decide the trier of fact has to look at this case based on the age and education of the injured party she was fourteen she was an adult at that time the trier of fact needs to hear that evidence need to see the testimony and needs to determine whether or not there is some sort of contributory negligence out there and if there is contributory negligence they could miss signs that at that time that decision shouldn't be taken away from the trier of fact well the issue of whether or not  danger what was the enhanced risk of danger here by letting a passenger off at a designated bus stop to be against risk of danger was the timing when this occurred the beginning of the school year and the fact that it had a high likelihood that some of the students especially the freshman as it was their first year taking a minute municipal bus had never ridden a municipal bus before and dad always taken the yellow school bus near their location and given the timing when this occurred it's a high likelihood that it's going to be new students and also people who have not taken that bus before so in that circumstance the student actually does play a role into something that the jury has got to consider with respect to this fourteen year old girl that she had never taken this bus before because she never had occasion kinda i keep coming back to how he does school enter into a contract with municipality which didn't take into consideration those factors which are normally present to protect students from this very kind of thing sure an indicator i think it is a common occurrence that once they reach high school age and they do take to defend it's actually talked about in this case that they discussed the possibility of going into the school district and actually teaching the students the dangers of riding on the bus and the dangers of crossing in front of the bus so enough of itself on that the defendants not only recognized it but then they also recognize that they were they were ones who should warn the people of their new passengers of the dangers of important though that in any case the defense arguing bats the passenger could have just stayed in a place of safety they could have just stayed on the sidewalk but the appellate court held that that wasn't a reason to overturn a jury verdict and in favor of the plaintiffs the jury should be able to decide that that's a similar situation that happened here in a similar argument that the defense is making and she could have just stayed on the sidewalk she did and that's something for the jury decide as the jury got to decide he has in my client should be have the right to do that as well and then also when you hear it a minor child exiting the school bus walked at least people walked ten feet away so even ten feet away that ordinary fair standard still could apply and that ordinary care standards still should apply in this case even when she was struck after she left the boss now did narrow it down sanded the most important issue was the war those issues were not discussed in the question of decision or the now with respect to this particular case and the duty of ordinary care that duty should apply in this case as well because a duty will apply when there is a pussy ability of the injury the magnitude of the injury and the bird potential and the burden on the bus company is minimal to provide an adequate warning to which bus passengers in order to warn of the dangers crossing from the dot and bus that they might get struck by a car judgment this case because they breached no duty owed to plaintiff's minor and because considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff her conduct constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law and i know that's unusual passenger on the bus the duty ceased however once she alighted from the bus to a place of safety and that thereafter defendants owed her a duty of ordinary care however what is that duty let's say for example that that duty involved assigning an employee of the discussed company this provides a public transfer of protection services to the general public and has little if any authority to refuse to provide those services to paying passengers paying customers let's say that they assign an employee to a company plaintiff's minor get on the bus with her stay off stay with her on the bus leave the bus with her at what point does the plaintiff's minors relationship with the bus company become so attenuated as to no longer be within the purview of any duty whatsoever out that involved a bus stop it other than the usual stop the passenger alighted the bus or blocked the passenger's view of traffic the bus driver then signaled to the passenger motion that it was ok to cross and the former passenger was struck by a car the evidence in this case was clear the bus was stopped at a designated bus stop there is no claim that transit company was negligent in the placement board as a nation of that bus stop and there is no dispute that driver direction did not see the plaintiff until an instant before she was struck by the vehicle operated by defendant boston moving on to serve a purpose as the city of chicago in the chicago transport transit authority a bus driver blocked a marked pedestrian cross walk plaintiff a twelve year old schoolboy cross in front of management could have done that they did not the extent of the contract was that the school district would issue bus passes on behalf of trenton and that was poor but i guess my real question is didn't she do that in this case by taking on the responsibility of it passing then take on the added responsibility of having to buy caution warnings or some sort of but i'll try and answer it and yes this the transit management defend that could have contract with the school district much as bus as school bus companies contract with the school district to transport school children to and from school that's not the case here even if they have to get the hypothetical of the transit management employee assigned to this plaintiff's minor the time plaintiffs minor a lighter from a bus to a place of safety left the place of safety crossed a line of traffic and entered into another lane of traffic the relationship to the bus company is so ten you waited as to not to rise to the level of a duty and that is that is the gist of the defendant's argument in this case in in similar type fashion prior to this particular accident did it does that there's i can't say there's no significance but the fact that it occurred the fact that the transit company was aware of it the t probative value as i see it then that's how the transit company saw the the act of discussing it and placing the signs up were were attempts to go above and beyond what was they felt was required at the time the it with regard to the duty to warn  extend plaintiff myre exit defendant's bus to a place of safety but there after she left the place of safety ignored the nearby cross walk forty to fifty feet away there was a she didn't stop to look for traffic before she ran across a busy street and she didn't look for traffic while she was crossing the street any duty which defendants may have had was so attenuated by the time plaintiff's minor was struck by defendant boss of vehicle as to vanish and that's what the trial court found without getting too far afield here as a small district or been a defendant or third party defendant in this believe plaintiff's liner exit the driver of the bus testified to that he included that in his affidavit i don't think that's a disputed fact  with regard to plaintiff's minor i believe that the law in illinois in this is this comes from ward track versus public service oh and it is cited in one of the plaintiffs cited cases and i think it's the service case but in that case the court looked at whether there's a presumption of responsibility for their acts by minors and  and i believe that the law in illinois is that child under the age of seven years is conclusively presumed not responsible for his or her acts however between seven and fourteen as a result of a presumption and that which leads us privileges under supervision of operating a motor vehicle for self now with regard to the notice that seems to be the gist of plaintiff's case sites to several products liability cases putting one valving a fertilizer spreader and other involving a medical device known as a catheter connector for the property proposition that notice was in adequate in this case but those cases deal with some well are kane risk of harm each a little bit different appreciated or able to be appreciated very much within the purview of the manufacturer and less than apparent to users of those products the risk of harm in this case from running across a busy street is neither our pain nor less apparent to bus passengers even bus passengers fourteen years of age your honor so as i began plaintiff has not plaid and does not define any actor omission of the defend dabs and controlling or failing to control the movement of plaintiff's minor after broad terms of duty of ordinary care has to be special more specific the what what was the duty of ordinary care i can't find it was it to provide somebody to walk plaintiff's minor ordinary here right under these extraordinary fractures but primarily my argument is that there was not a duty i can't fi e the duty extends to show duty to do what here if you don't warn passengers of the dangers especially minor first time passengers the dangers of cross in front of a now that is a question that should be answered by the trier of fact i would submit to this work you know it's not satisfied by that sign because two prior incidents they had that exact same time and the girls left the bus the minor children left the boss that same bus route in that same year crossing from the bus or struck by a car same incident  button and something like that could have been dominant to provide the adequate warning to to be apart for the jury needs to decide whether or not this warning that was on the bus was adequate or not and given that the p