i can't remember but i think this may have gotten what brought up to some extent between right trying to grossman's after me so i don't know if that's why it went and it's like oh my gosh we have an obligation to current events and you know now we know but i would submit to this communicating to them that he don't worry i get discovered you know i'm good with fixing the fence you guys are going to be good neighbors well did they even know  s you know they're essentially in my opinion they had they had they had edited that there was a duty by their actions and their statements but you could also argue that there is a duty under the  party claim against the place given the defendant the bar does not necessarily translate into the third party claim so so you know other words that the bar under the is calling a common law negligence claim what he's actually talking about is a violation of the domestic animals running at large act because the only way for someone to bring about a clean related to injury or damages in the state of illinois for  r getting out is under the domestic animals running at large shaft there is no common line duty for frank or gross ins to keep cattle in close it's except under the domestic animals running a large  it is an actual doctrine however it's not a heightened it's not a claim where you get to ignore the elements of the the underlying claim he still has to be able to show that the gross ends are liable to the provide pretty liquidated damages or any damage provisions so if you frame believe that the grosses were violating their obligation under that contract we certainly could have done is bright a breach of contract claim however he has to show how the of that if that is what the if france position as i understand it from his brief is that the power of the policy considerations are such that we should find that there is a duty for the plaintiffs and the general public at large that because of this the domestic animals running a large check in the negligence laws of this state beyond recognition that would mean that every single person who ever happened to be driving down that road is old and you need pursuant to that contract which is just not what the parties intended and there's no evidence of that by the actual terms of the contract to suggest that that's what they intended boundary fence are required to maintain their francis in just proportion which doesn't necessarily mean fifty fifty so under this contract that was written between these these presidents or parties in the one nine hundred seventy s it was their intent to define what was meant by just proportion they did in this contract determined it to be fifty fifty but they could have done thirty seven year old whatever so really the purpose of that contract was to define as just mean these parties what their our nations were with regard to the number of framework to resolve disputes among adjoining landowners as to the minas of boundary fences and it requires certain things if one is going to avail himself of the provisions of the act so if frank believed that the grosses were not under were not meeting their obligation or duty to be meeting the fans what he could have done is following the statutory guidelines he could have provided notice to the gross ins and then if they still acted not to to fix or maintain their friends he could've made those repairs themselves and charged those to be gross and he didn't do that another option would be for you to call out the county fence viewers have them come to make a determination about whose responsibility it was to maintain the fence and that c made the conscious decision for each of these three years prior to this accident now only to make his own changes to that kind but not to call the group since because he wanted to be in charge of how how those changes in your appearance were taking place never gave him an opportunity to correct correct and so he cannot turn around and then say ok well now that there's been an accident i'm going to push some of the damages that i had to pay and settle into the plaintive over to the gross and when he didn't do what the prerequisites under the statute work and there's a couple of instructed kid instructive cases one is the fox vs furry coat case which is a fourth district case that involved a defendant who turned the cows out into a cattle enclosure knowing that his enjoying landowners fence was not sufficient to keep this cattle and and when his carol foreseeable a guy through the fence and died needing his neighbor's cattle the court said when he tried to file a claim against his neighbor for not keeping up his portion of the fence the court said no you had remedies available to you under the fence lack fence why you chose not to avail yourself of them so you cannot come in here and try to recover for damages when you didn't do what you should have done under the act i think that's the same situation that we have here in the trial court correctly count that craig was carter for using the fenceline act because of the undisputed facts that he didn't know they held himself at the pre requisites under that act i also want to mention proposition that the owner of cattle is relieved of his duty to restrain the cattle as to the portion of the fence that's required to be maintained by injuring the landowner pursuant to the feinstein act which he doesn't mean he doesn't say enjoying landowner of mine carol who are my property or are or somehow damaged by my neighbor's cattle coming through the fence then before i can bring a claim i make sure that my portion of the fence is sufficient and that's when the ke to the general public to create maintain fences to keep his own housing closed one of the things that he said in his reply agreed the public policy considerations of the domestic animals running in large actor outweighed by public policy ramifications and consequences of that kind and do your just astronomical or immoral areas in the state anyone who has the land near somebody else that has carolina's fences is under an obligation then to make sure that those fences are sufficient to keep our cattle that they don't even own there just isn't a do meet and common law or under any of the statutory scheme schemes the only expense are actor the domestic animals running act that would support that interpretation of the duty a defend it we're talking about a duty between the plates head in this lawsuit and the third party defined it because in order for there to be a contribution claim both of them must be subject to liability to the plaintiff and so it's it is not  frank might not have had a preacher contract actually in mourning doing at some point to have brought a clean against the gross and spurs to him to the elin my friends our act but when we look at whether there is a duty owed to the plane ticket we should look at the four different factors to talk about the relationship the foreseeability of injury now council talked about what's foreseeable if you don't maintain a friends that how to get out well that's a live a bit more of a generic way of talking about what happened here is it foreseeable to my clients that maintaining the fans or not meeting the friends would lead to a six figure settlement from some random third party that happened to be driving down the road that they would have to contribute to a settlement i don't think that's forseeable in the way that that case law contemplates and then we also look to the consequences of of them imposing was a burden on the gross ins and again this is just an astronomical departure from negligence like to place this burden on anyone who lives near somebody that owns cattle that's why a domestic animals running at large act was enacted to create the duty on the part of people who own or keep cattle to keep that includes because they are in the best position to know where the and what the condition of the fences are isn't really simple fix to this one council talks about i'm just in richmond and see this as a case of unjust enrichment because frank was the one who was in the best position to be able to avoid this result by simply in the three years experience dealing with fences decided that he was handling it sufficiently and that he didn't need to grow since to do anything so then how do we get around that that dumb contract offensive when i think we're asking that there isn't a breach of potential breach of contract but it doesn't create tort liability for a contribution claim you can bring a breach of contract claim that the court could be considering or injury he considering what are his damages and at that point i i mean it was that he believed for the first time that defense was insufficient they immediately and they immediately fixed it they immediately hired someone to make the repairs at his request so i don't i mean i guess that would be for a jury to decide whether there is a breach of