burdened by several errors that require reversal first and probably most obvious one is the trial court's denial of all the groups motion for substitution of judges as of right would you agree with them that since this happened after the case was signed for trial and it was within a few days that all the thirty and it's were making their respective reconsider that that's banks hold a hearing on the motion to reconsider and she asks defense counsel what's your position of defense counsel agrees so as i said i think that the motion to right you don't think can be a substantial ruling even if the party on the other side says yeah we agree that that's part of the reason i think it's not ruling on a substantial issue it's over this period there is nothing for the judge stipend in determining the issue standing why should the other be found us plain language of beef about the fact that the rational people what would be the end of the assembly lawyers among them who feel the need for an op when one when the statute has an application that doesn't make sense it doesn't and  those cases can subsequently be consolidated that's the answer that it's i'm not sure i'm terribly ever really impressed with their answer but that is a fact back to bad it doesn't and i mean the problem with consolidating is that it only gives the no value to the motion in the first place because your you might be getting stuck with the same judge but it could be consolidated with the next judge or if it's a it's a consideration that but do you have any illinois supreme court case that you think gives us guidance on this question about this very situation involving the you know the granting the change as of right when that's violated the reason that the orders are void or no latine subsequent to that what is your what do you believe the reasoning behind that is i believe the reasoning here is what i think the reasoning is that this is something that it's a serious rule that there's no way around the court the trial the statute and doesn't have the power to hear the case when that statute is filed and when the court doesn't have the power to hear the case the orders entered subsequent according to cases going back you know more than one hundred years is that those orders are what the how do you so i'm just asking do you have any supreme absolute the subsequent orders are born there's no further explanation i've seen in the supreme court opinions about what the reason for that is other than the intuitive one unless this is really a serious matter there's no fooling around about a change of right means a change of right but there's other issues here was this a substantial ruling you're saying that a ruling on a substitution of judge  i mean i don't know that that's a given of any height and does it matter that that when that ruling was when the motion to reconsider came up the ruling denying the substitution had  from the transcript where the court where one of the defendant says that but i also have a i have a substitution regarding alter that same tack does it matter that this whether this ruling about the reconsideration of earth after the request was made for this other such as one step substitution was made is there somehow suddenly the court asked drop everything and then rule on the substitution before it rules on the motion to reconsider is there yeah i think it's all about time i think the statute just everything the supreme court of cases  so you can't take write a motion for substitution and then intervening with the substantive one so that you can have coffee as a i say it's too late you have to take it in the order that it's presented which is not entirely ordinary rule of standing they would have to say they have a substantial immediate interest it's disadvantage by rule they don't have standing if in fact i mean if you determine that the all the law of the last hundred years is that when such emotion is wrongfully denied all the orders and judgments in the case of orwell no cases said that except for austin the because no case very interesting question i don't mind that you will encounter your very next argument because if you are right on the s o g a all you get out of it is arena if you are right  under the evidence in this case and and what was seen didn't the speed make a difference in what remedial action could have been taken consequently that the plaintiff felt that it was a safe entry with that have been a safe country do we speculate as to whether it would be i'm giving you an indication of where i want some guy showed that reeves may have been driving as much as nine and a half miles over the web which for all intents and purposes let's call that effect because that's not something we could change as me i'm not bottom mining get butts up i would be surprised if that were anything other than a galling type of non foreseeable situation i don't know that yet i haven't hea but if the speed in addition to determining the risk that it's the fact that they were both sharing the same mathematical how that could have affected behavior and that could have been a contributing factor leading to the collision are in the fact that the put them both there at the same time because if it's a matter of putting them both there at the same time then the argument could be made that could have happened if they want to solve you know what determines where somebody will f trickle winds and may not at all partake of foreseeability but on the other hand but that's where i want you to give me the factors that you see in the factors that exist in the record that me affect interaction between the parties based on the relative the speed of the truck and how it affected the perception and behavior of  the the of well there i think the answer to that is that this is already been dealt with by the courts in the context of legal causation we have cases like this that the courts have looked at it the line at the risk of her entry into the intersection from that stop sign at that point that's the theory ok now she actually testified to that and she were alive and dealt with the same facts that we have here but none of that money gate the him back of the dynamic if in fact the speed can be shown to affect judgment if that speed is longer in the relevant consideration but can do its job as creating presumptive negligence which is a term that embraces contributed to the injury in a foreseeable man and the focus of course is is not what because it doesn't make sense otherwise to say if you have a preferential highway you know you go as fast as you hit you like  corresponding behavior of them for example he seems to be crawling and the victim enters the answers and he you know bursts of speed accelerates beyond the speed limit and when the car in front of her drove right this is not a roll through the evidence was that she was stopped at the stop stop posting this this truck was going at ten miles an speeds up without ever having seen her stack into the see the truck sees her at the stop sign there is an intervening the call or what have you that prevents this truck from without ever having seen this victim's car other thing that stops that's your deferential highway principle don't carry that truck through does that truck ha ask for seen the possibility of trucks of other vehicles misjudging just imo arrival by entering into intersections or what have i just like to to emphasize i do believe that if they all say hello to the cool people are dressed to the specific negligence allegations that we have here the channel case to the extent the court gets interested in how quickly the vehicle is moving that washington case channel is talking about a specific you're sixteen miles per hour over the limit and it catalogs a bunch of cases with with even  last issue i'd like to pick up briefly at and i think it's a third independent reason for the first thing the judgments here is the court's erroneous admission of the prior bad a forward from the stop sign or seconds prior to the impact now you know there's no duty to hit the brakes until you know that car stop stop saying is now coming for the other testimony from mr ricard that was our expert but cross examination of him and this is fine twenty three page twenty one awake that night you would expect an alert driver to have a two point five second reaction time to the driver making a forward move in your lane and submit that as a matter of why should it be of this if you're saying scenario here that they never call anybody from being foods and walks i have a big question mark about what seems to be  main line of your argument namely as you can't establish agency without the testimony of the principal that somehow you've seen the agent cannot establish his own age and i really have question mark about that i because i'm i'm wondering at least as i understand what it means you can't create the agency operationally through the mere assertion of the age by the agent doesn't lose status as a witness i could testify as to any of the acts of the principal establishing the agency or the circumstances from which the agency that's that's true and so company in the earlier complaint so backs it up if you could entertain the notion of inadvertence or otherwise but the question is what really happens all the cases that speak to fact that the entity that you did joy was actually in existence and where you simply stated about the notion as to who's responsible i think it through it was whether the owner says to lay this the statue and then giving the power why or why is this the prudent situation and not the police situation where they actually thought they were then under their motion they said we were just and by that that the actual owner of the trailer is female lawyer here and then they were also advised that reeves now it's a ploy by all or so you're saying if they knew that there was that there were two or three different attitudes and they were confused as to who was what but they certainly had bad information i mean in the old you know the old six sixteen he did talk about her but the new one doesn't improve it says you know by amending the section the legislature intended to impose make it more severe so finally you know point out i'm sure the courts were a bit put the statute does not tell you what the remedy yes and i wanted to just mention that because it kind of got overlooked as we went through the process of the statute visit to the courts to provide the remedy and the problem is the court has put its finger on is that there's not a whole lot of guidance from the appellate courts as to what to do when you have multiple defendants some of them have used up their esle chase and somebody comes in and has assessed o j allegedly wrongfully deny but why should the other people be able to implicitly in that order said nobody gets to use and as such a motion in this case this case is going before the judge whether you like it that's the that's the supreme court order that recently issued and it's with our motion is pending before the court because you know there is a big difference  of us though any insight about the subsequent orders of judge because and because that case proves that there is not that one the courts have historically said that any water entered after case as well and if in austin he she didn't specifically say that she rejects home and the parents and there was simply no way that that case was ever going to be separate her opinion she didn't allow room for strike correct she said statement just a statement is wrong but she didn't say what you said it was just like you talked about she d trace back this yes ok or change and the policy behind it is that whether a judge violates well at least the statutory provisions here that say you know some changes are as of right and then everyone can always allege prejudice but the statute here the automatic as of right once the judge violates that statute that they don't have power to continue hearing the case and that the orders that they enter are no this process wrote does it matter that there are these multiple part case it doesn't matter that there are multiple parties impacted she doesn't have the power to continue she doesn't have the statutory authority and therefore what she does  the courts of drafting the remedy then the court should be able to draft a remedy that isn't a bright line remedy and every situation that that remedy in fact has to be adopted word to have to the situation just like they did in austin did they adopted the remedy that and whatever week benefit weekends we can get from the previous case all of the cases that have used the word void have not used it in this scenario and so that you have a scenario here with the other parties have and have not then offended or aggrieved or injured by the the supreme court of bemis has said no changes they sent them back down they reversed the change they sent it back down for trial before the same judge by doing that is the supreme court saying you're right this absolute right is not absolute well actually the supreme court they said that it's a substantial ruling when you when you cross somebody to sit up here before a deposition he said it was a substantial ruling when the when the trial court in fact entered an order approving a stipulation that would be the raunch case they said those were substantial rulings  case that all lawyers and so much and it could turn out how this s o g a was handled by the lawyers in the trial again i go back to is the change of automatic change of venue statute so absolutely that when two people stand or we and say we're one you get one change or two changed was that unreasonable for the trial court judge at that point was wrong  she has to make a judgment as to whether or not she in fact has time to clear is there or is the truck a small unit just a hazard so imminent that she should not point to the intersection that's a judgment call and the jury's going to read that rights of any user of the preferential highway i mean can she be partially negligent here without taking at all and giving me the day so to speak got not sure why the court would have to come pick occlusion that it's either the truck driver who was one hundred percent the fall or the other driver who was one hundred percent because of the cases that for that would be a correct statement of the law under the facts that we have here where she could see the truck in where we have the careful habits testimony which is enough to have the jury ask the law gives us wasn't discussed earlier but one party or the other admits i was somewhat of fall the case is over because your daughter would say well you should follow your entirely fault and that's not the case it's a question of balancing the foxes between the two drivers that are there and that's what the jury did but burden of proof so it was a rule of the sest so that you're not entirely out of the box simply because you don't have an i o you do have an eyewitness that rule of necessity falters and there was a food under the instruction say if it doesn't quite a scenario because we don't have test more used for exactly where she looked and what she did is she made that turn but if your honour's correct then any scenario any scenario in which a party agreed they might have been partially at fault would end their ability to defend or prosecute the case depending on what side they were on and that's the rationale that i think michael really well if there was there's not going to doubt for a rethink whether  of that is that is is being may through a kind of an inductively was no witnesses along the way are circumstantial indicators of what she did or didn't do look down the road you assume that there's a price going a certain speed if somebody is going very very fast when you walk across the street you look down the road with some you're jaywalking you're not supposed to assume you're jaywalking we look down the street you know foster see somebody coming up quick that's what gone inside well and actually provides a little bit of bridge  with a little bit of background to understand those two businesses and the relationship between businesses between all order and dean they had met all locations that were joint distributes certain products just exclusively fourteen exclusively for doing that's a relationship goes back sixty some years very if we start out the context of who's instruction this is what it is the instruction come from does it come from dean or does it come from all the correct or are and the point is because all these extreme here specs then i think we begin to that the other people use when they're communicating with the pirates when they're just running the drivers they use deem fruits stationary and that's how they communicate with these writers these writers believe as was stated by the driver in this make you stop if you can tell us you need for five minutes to summarize like that would be fine your honor or five minutes of in this case your honor i don't think there's any question that there is a six point six relation back to the original the final being which is the pleasure of what says before the statute it was only based on information that we got from the defendant that made us men to compl right specially this one this didn't have any content no explanation as to why the supreme court baked it third point was respect to the careful habits instructions there were crystal clear admissions in the closing arguments of the plaintiffs said it what he also said was nobody from dean ever told that it was work and i mean not happy cases daniels casco foster where the name of the prospective heard that the alleged principle was on the truck i mean every case where your name's on the truck the driver's con will you know to the public reflect on that company but that does not prove actually