defendant's knowledge regarding what other manufacturers in the industry were following as it pertains to what is called that reverse flow housing the simply or the oil filters hydraulic system had facts in it and that the manufacturer replacement parts and that they should contact the dealer manufacturer to have these parts install that's what they voluntarily order took to do and they failed to do it and according and empty products incorporated with regard to the st issue before the court the quaintest conclusory allegations that defendant should have known of the design defect in the tractor at the time of its defendant knew or should have known in three complaints and one proposed complaint going to as only made speculative and conclusory allegations of the new or should have known element without alleging supporting amended complaint are conclusory and therefore insufficient but this can be summed up with the understanding that whether it's industry standards other tractors other manufacturers these are the allegations in the nd and then complaint but they don't include factual support from which it can be inferred that these industry standards or other tractors or other manufacturers were using the reverse flow filter housing assembly and the new i o folks or in other words the plaint has done nothing more than cut and pasted the elements from the case was and how we show these elements and put them into his complaint and that's not sufficient and the case saw bears that out and it's not just some contest for the st time in his reply brief the plaintiff has cited this court's decision and blo blevins is another case that talks about the ultimate facts and it's a case where this court was dealing with a situation where they had a home sale and the issue before the court was whether the sellers had knowledge of water and folks ration of water damage the court ultimately concluded with a sentence stating that the original complaint in this case allege that defense knew that there was water infiltration water damage in or about the damaged wallboard i think the important thing to realize and perhaps the opposite of what plaintiff is is intimating by citing that case is this court did not mean that pla plaintiff had to do was to allege that the defense knew that there was water and filtration of water damage without some supporting facts from which that conclusion could be inferred and in fact if it did mean that it would be contrary to the to where it lists the supporting factual allegations from which the knowledge element can be reasonably inferred and it's it relies on knowledge of the buyers contractor statements about how what the law was and that it could be inconceivable that the sellers didn't know about it so leavens to the extent that it's being suggested is somehow different than the authority of our time of manufacture and the trial court was correcting concluding that that was lacking engineering principles are not required as plaintiff complains he just needs to allege some facts from which it can be inferred we're not plaintiff adequately pleaded the failure to warn based on a voluntary undertaking cookouts st position here is that it didn't voluntarily undertake to warn the owners of the tractors to the service advisor and claim just conclusory allegation that we it did is contradicted by the language of the service advisory itself it's come cadets position that if the service advisor and was and owners of these tractors changed the reversed the housing filter assembly and put in the new oil filter there would have been some instructions there in on how to do that the title of the document itself is service advisory which means that it's meant for service technicians the title is not owner's advisory intimating that it would be for rent for owners service advice that the service advisory was directed at service technicians and not ours is further demonstrated by plane it's own allegation that he never received the service advisory even in the face of his his other allegation that company that had his address was your honour's plaintiff has not adequately pled the increased increased risk of harm element here and i think it's important to focus on the  torts and we don't focus on that case for and analogous because the effects are so much different that was a case where you know it involved alcohol at a party and a young girl being  in any event we went on to some cases that were more factually appropriate we thought and while plaintiff contends that negligently failing to deliver the service advisory to him  not only increased the risk of harm but was the direct approximate cause of his injuries he's applying the wrong test the test is not whether the risk was increased over what would have been if the defendant had not been negligent rather a duty is impose only if the risk is increased over what it would have been had the senate not engaged in the undertaking at all had company that not issued the service fifty three dollars at all is what we need to focus on the risk that the tractor read is not contrary to the supreme court decision in our supreme court's decision on what could well could look also specifically found that the actions of the defendant a whole lot relist of them actions taken by the defendant because of the this this a need greed teenager left her in a worse position and therefore the risk of harm was indeed increased or more accurately the supreme court found that the allegations at the increased risk of harm occurred were adequate but they had a list of things that the defendants did including preventing people from calling nine hundred and eleven that place this young woman in in a  more precarious position and increased the risk of harm that's not what happened in our case the risk of harm remained the same whether or not the service advisory was issued or not and consuls reliance on s which relies on paper which relies on nelson is misplaced because the court in nelson was construing section three to three of the restatement of torts from one hundred and thirty four when we look at the rd amanda complete you know the four factors that the supreme court has that done a fight for us regarding those and when when we decide whether or not we're going to allow a complaint to be amended is whether the amendment would cure the defects in your rd complaint that you're not in fact in the complaint and my question is does that is that amended any defects in the original pleadings or that brought in additional factors for the court to consider  the the proposed rd amended complaint does have additional allegations but they don't cure the defects there's really only two pertinent additional allegations one is that they cite i should say the plaintiff cites the n s i n f p a standards for manufacturing and designing lawn tractors now presumably these are the fire the fire protection association and the american national standards institute but it doesn't it doesn't doesn't move the ball any more than alleging industry standards in the nd and then you complain they just identified an organization now it's still suffers the same defect there's no facts from which it can be  you addressed this issue and your position that because the proposed amendment does not address the defect that under the allen case that it should fail and the court should deny it therapist advisory and you argue that you never undertook to warn anyone what was the purpose of that service advisory if it was not to warn it was the purpose of the service advisory was to advise service technicians to make those changes when working on those tractors is how i read the service advisor your honor there's no indication that it was intended  u sent to owners of the tractors nonetheless you when you tell a service provider to change a particular mechanism it's not well i'm not necessarily your honor i guess it's a warning if it's intended to fix something that is dangerous it's not a warning if it's intended to fix something that's simply a matter of you know efficiency or or practicality or operation you know maybe it overheats you know so i think you can't assume that it's morning ok all right fair enough thank you very much for your argument voluntarily undertook to inspect the premises and the plaintiff alleged future negligently conducted those inspections