we're going to ask the lawyers who are going to argue to step up at this time introduce themselves and some assume you represent the puddle we need change that if there are a lot of questions or if the argument becomes repetitive please remember to speak loudly our microphones do not amplify but merely record what is being sat also please understand we have read the briefs and are very familiar with the facts of the felt your time to your strongest arguments justice cunningham is the third member of the panel and she is unable to be here today however she has read the briefs and will thoroughly participate in our deliberations as well as listen to the tape recording of the arguments right had i not feeling to stop this particular kind of an attack i would respectfully suggest to your honor that you're going over review you can look at that but in proceedings below that we never got that judge his findings and only in the summary judgment again point blank no to the stop there because there is no duty nothing else has to be addressed he stated that he saw no will in the materials that were presented not exist in this case does not exist under the law and is totally unfair to the state that sits at that stands before you today through me and this particular case  it is a criminal attack by a third person we go back to the landmark case that controls the situation which judge gamma linsky said he reviewed he did not shar i'm a security company yes they have a responsibility to protect individuals and from what source do we discern that the scope never sponsibility is that the contract between secur or securitized undertook to provide security at this particular location the place where i would correct the court for the quick answer is in this case the defense hired an expert in the areas charity mr murphy on mr murphy first issued a report that was part of the pleadings of this motion and then they were doing at the time of this attack and not being close enough to the receptionist to pray stop the he had so much doing that doing what they were doing your honor it was they didn't he did it  in other words we're on the record where you find that on your de novo review the i would say your common sense which the jury is charged determined and now we're getting to the issue of breach arm which i would respectfully suggest even the way back maintains that being said that's a jury issue before the pippen supreme court was you know is there a legal duty under the circumstances here the answer is yes then the court went on i would put before you his report this he that's all part of this record they have opined that these two particular gods were negligent in the way they would carry out their responsibilities and that you know he's opining that the two security guards who were on the second floor right were supposed to have seen someone walk through the front door on this kind of camera noticed that he hadn't seen again sleen in a cigarette lighter  right and then somehow get downstairs to the first floor quickly enough to stop him from attacking the receptionist was located very close to the front door how is that supposed to happen unless there mikes have superspeed or something  area that we're talking about you could have been distracted she could have been talking to someone who was sitting in the lobby a lot of things you know it well you may be right that she may have had a better view but bottom line some time address the the factor but there the cameras were not doing a direct life feed but there were they were doing my flashlamp still shots so it was like three seconds every well have been that all this happened too quickly for them to have done anything other than run downstairs fire extinguishers they are this natural finding it's not like they're watching him in life time walking with gasoline outside the building with this and in this kelly wallace correct and that you had the cigarette in his mouth he went in he came out i felt something about a cigarette and you have a contract between parties that contract says they had to secure to securing the firm does not and will not under the terms hear of or otherwise provide of furnish any service that directly or indirectly requires armed personnel or guardian office and that they weren't  armed they only wore uniforms they were stationed in the main area they were somewhere up on the second flo you can proceed when you're ready made please the court what we have before the court is a case that involves a tragic scene a script there's no question but this case also is a case where there was no duty on the part of my client to prevent this crime from occurring the facts in this case are straightforward and they're not in dispute the most critical fact is what type of business my claim is in we're a private security staffing provide in this case we didn't undertake to formulate a security plan all we did was undertake to staff a plan that was already devised by our clients integra health systems the testimony is that william by the testimony in a residential neighborhood located next to houses in a high school this is in woodstock illinois town the population less than forty thousand people when we come in to provide secur soon to the contract we're doing so based upon some takers plan not our own sin tegra did not contemplate hiring us that we would formulate any idea about how many guards are required or where rosette out all of those details in advance as the client they decide how many security officers they want to pay for they decide which security officers they want at which facilities and for what periods of time and at those particular facilities centex resets the posts and as you've discussed earlier the post of these two security officers were station that was not on in the lobby tempers specifically did not want security officers in the lobby of this facility they did so because they did not want to discourage any mental health patients from coming into what was the public area of this building which is the reception area where this incident occurred is there anything in the record that shows the distance between the front door to the outside and the reception desk the only thing that i could cite to her in the overhead of the reception desk it is rather than looking at the front door is separate but that's true i do serious now that any other cameras that did different shots are there there was an x terrier mounted camera that did not pick up any presence of anyone the first the first known presence of lawrence such that the scene is depicted in the photographs that were provided the security cameras are also an issue because securitize had nothing to do with those cameras in terms of the set up or the alignment or the design of the system where cameras should be place securitized came in and what they did is they provided staffing if you look at the contract securitize was the trained security officers or soon the state requirements these officers met those requirements the two officers who were working that day there's no heavens that they did anything other than that which they were supposed to do one officer was supposed to those places were for the particular patrols both on the inside and on the outside of the building these two officers did everything that they were supposed to do that down the ship now lawrence took status a patient of the facilit the evidence is an industry there as well he was under active treatment dr rifi handled an outpatient treatment program that this patient was part of the program he had completed the form that said you're not allowed to share any personal information with anyone there was no indication when this individual left treatment it knew that he posed any threat to himself or others and based upon the case and the practice it's integrity there's palace brief there's a mention of a prior dust up if you will between mr hucks dad and mr lift the only evidence of that is what's put in the complaint there's no evidence in the record whatsoever and in fact their own expert said in reviewing the records  security company at another syntagma facility and met him that said the facility that we're talking about south street is the only place to get mental health support  when we look at the contract it's clear on the face of the document that securitised did not undertake to prevent or protect against violent criminal activity or any situation that was outside of their undertake in this case there's no evidence about protection it's interesting to me that the plaintiffs or the opponents brief in this case questions issue of access control and they point to the mission statement that's part of the poster and the mission statement actually says something about access control but if you look at mr ricks testimony they don't want security guards and a lot of security guards actually didn't undertake any responsibility or perspective access control for the main entrance to the facility none whatsoever i mean the fact of the matter is integra by design wanted that main entrance to be open to the public and i suppose that's that's the problem associated with this discussion is that when you look at the security companies here what are they there for the answer is to serve what the client requested them to do pursuant to the contract and that's what they did in this case occur responsibility is not to design a security plan and not a lockdown facility it certainly could be done but it what cost it would mean that patients wouldn't get into the facility the treatment would not be accessible but the facility would be wholly locked down and safe style uniform the reason they wanted the police style uniform as mr riggs testified to is because there were occasions where within the various units in this four story building syntagma his personnel would call for security the security officer would respond to the unit and they would do what we call the patient standby where the securitized officer would sit in a room with the patient not talk to the patient not touch the patient not do anything along those lines but just allow the presence to allow the patient time to calm down whatever it occurred before the scare us or it was a it was one of your officers directed to be stationed in the syria where the herd you know you're on the established in writing setting forth that one of your people had to be in the lobby that day at the time of the occurrence no none whatsoever and the testimony of bill riggs and mr chandler who were the two people responsible for security for centex is that they specifically did not want security officers in the lobby of the building so we had no responsibilit whatsoever and were actually discouraged from even standing in the lobby and standing talking to the receptionist in conversation because of the way that we retire they did not want patients to be discouraged from coming and seeking treatment and were afraid that someone appearing to be security might discourage that from happening that's specifically why they posted security on the second floor in the vet's office space that had the monitors and the id badge machine and that's where the security post was designated it was not designated by security officers designated by some to have the nature of this occurrence is horrendous but it's not something that i would submit that occurs every day were to be reasonably assumed to have i don't think that it would be reasonably foreseeable for someone in in my client's position to foresee that someone would come in and literally throw gasoline under a receptionist from a paint can and i think that's one other thing that's missing from the discussion is that this that the woman talks that did not approach the hospital with a sign that said i'm going to set the hospital on fire he approached the hospital apparently smoking a cigarette which i don't think is notice of anything dastardly or until he approached carrying a pink cam which similarly is not a signal to to me or to a reasonable person that anything diabolical is about to occur he entered the facility carrying a paint can ms wise who is a witness to the she was walking out of the hospital doorway and according to the still shots that we've been able to capture those still shots occur every three to four seconds and you have all of them that came off the camera you can see how quickly the situation walked into this lobby through the gasoline and to the receptionist desk and the receptionist in the litter and the reception area fire and the fire burned so bright and so quickly that it melted the camera wall that's why we don't have any more snapshots even from that second floor those officers responded as quickly as humanly possible and they couldn't get there before the fire broke out and they helped to foot so when you asked me earlier about the distance and the time what happens after this occurrence in terms of response a celestron of that they were there immediately they ran quickly but there was nothing they could do and there was no notice that they were provided by virtue of what was on the video it was a man carrying a container here and simple happens every day you know we see it all the time there were people are carrying a container a cup or what have you that's not indicative of something awful is about to happen in this particular case these officers did everything that they were supposed to do when we're supposed to look at duty here and then we look at voluntary undertaking we have to look at what it is that they undertook to do mr ricks was very specific about that he was the director of security for syntagma he hired security times and he said they're supposed to monitor the video monitors and second floor opposed to conduct the patrols that we set out which was to make id badges they're supposed to respond to the hospital wards when the call they're not supposed to be in the lobby they're not supposed to assert a physical presence in the lobby to deter people from coming in in this case there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that ms political relied in any way on the presence of security at the site there's no testimony and nothing in the record whatsoever prevent criminal tax against third parties it's evident the contract that we did not undertake to prevent criminal attack so the second prong with the restatement isn't met either and the first reasonable care increases the risk of such off what we did is what we were supposed to what we contracted to do and right look at the castro case it talks about how we have to look at the scope of the underta when we look at what we undertook under the contract and we look at the testimony of mr rich and mr chandler as to what this is supposed to do we clearly did not commit an undertaking but creates a duty to stop this type of the issue here is not the mere possibility that something could occur it's going to be much more certain that we've got to look at the foreseeability of the injury the likelihood of the injury occurring the magnitude of the burden regarding against that injury and the consequences of occurring is again very remote this is not something that occurs on a daily basis the magnitude of the bird of prey against such an injury is tremendous we have an armed security officers who are posted in the lobby they're posted away from the lobby to say that these two security officers have a duty to act prevent this type of attack imposes a tremendous burden on security especially because we're staffing company as i said we don't prescribe the security plan what we do is staff the plan that's been provided to us and the consequences of placing that burden on the defen e are tremendous there's nothing that securitize or any of its officers could've done in this case now there's been a lot of talk about the experts in this case and i want to touch on that as well because an expert can't create a duty the duty is derived based upon the the extent scope of the undertaking here which is defined by contract it's interesting to me that mr potter renders all of his opinions and yet  in closing i'm going to end where i started this is a tragic heinous criminal act the question is whether it was objective look reasonable for securitized as a provider of private security staffing services to reasonably end with the the washington vs city chicago case where the only supreme court i think said it best they said were injury results from freakish bizarre or fantastic circumstances no duty is present and no negligence claim can be assert if there was ever a claim of a case that had freakish circumstances bizarre circumstances it's this case thank you thank you is to me tr simple reason that even if he did and i can answer your question that my head apologist it is clear mr morsy dept and mr murphy the defense expert testified and wrote in his report that the security houses attorneys compels us to go back to a perjury trial because the vast majority of it all dealt with the issues of breach and cracks from a cost which our jury issues in th bench and think will cheat security should she curteis signed up to put two guys in a little room and for them to sit there and you know do whatever they do in a little room that's not the fact at all if you look at the locked on a previous occasion was a call to for this very attack within this integrity system because he was causing a problem so all these issues that they're facing if you look at the you will see in opposite troughs from what i just read who while this court review in that case in which they're executing company