there are considerable disputes relative to facts that occurred in this age we refer to it as a collision between two all terrain vehicles that were being operated on a county highway and although the impact itself was referred to as a collision was not a high energy impact between the two is basically a touching of a front wheel front wheel of the trailing vehicle to the rear wheel of the leading vehicle which when you close of this nature are not meant to be like cars have hundreds for each so that if you do if they do come in relative to speech at different times the defendant who got out on the summary judgment motion tells one version of the story relative to in his discovery deposition and the investigating officer the second day after the occurrence another version in the persian tells the investigating officer they were traveling together  he was the leader of the group they were traveling doles the officer about fifty miles an hour and he is realizes he has a passenger on this vehicle slows slows down and moves toward the edge there is contact between the two and the vehicle that my claim was writing on which was a trailing vehicle goes catapulting down the road both both occupants of the vehicle tossed from tossed from the trailing a t v and my client and so with a very severe permanent injuries the trial court i think saying oh we're only going to want to five miles an hour off we go we aren't changing lanes we didn't do anything suddenly etc to be frank i was quite taken aback when the motion was granted because of the dispute in the factual situation when we took the discovery depositions of several natures and as one would expect there were overlapping as there often are overlapping recollections of certain things and some that are diametrically opposed and in the motion for summary judgment argument was made unfortunately we don't have the the record as  the fortunately for from our standpoint is we have a de novo review the trial court in granting a motion for summary judgment enter the order stating that he wanted the defendant the apparently a malfunction of by county recording devices and we did not have a record of the arguments or the judge's explanation of his ruling so as the record indicates i sent a letter explanation for why he was really the took place that they argued that motion that they rule that motion was granted but i wanted to try to have that memorialized so that you could come here and i could say well fenice motion for summary judgment so we're here to try to review everything i believe that the evidence was the evidence was contradictory utility type of eighteen these are typically those that are used for agricultural purposes that may have a basket for carrying capacity or tool boxes etc and then there are some that are referred to as sport vehicles that have very abbreviated they have little fenders that sit upright of of the wheels that are basically to prevent our water mud and stuff from being thrown on the operator however the there is such an elevation over the back of the argued is and argued before this court is and i think the belly describes it as a rebuttable presumption that if there is a if there is a collision or a rear view trailing vehicle defendant cited specifically the earning case out of this court talks about the fact that a preceding driver and course the case laws developed relative to automobiles that the not not t situation where the preceding driver can just drive along and assume that everyone behind him has to look out for him if that were the case we would never hears on cars there for a reason and this court in it hazard and as we hear from the testimony in this case the christine wilson this is wilson who happened to be a bystander as these kids went by on their vehicles moments before the crash she says the two of them were traveling side by side in the middle of the wrote one on one side the middle one on the other and going to sit at a speed that she said she thought was in excess of what's safe for that type of a road and because he realized he was going that fast realize he had a passenger rossell thought he better slow down and as he's moving changing location on the roadway moving to the side of the road that's when he says he feels a after the after the before i get to that at most one of the allegations that we make in the house to against mr high slow is that prior to his slowing that he failed to indicate that the track the vehicle behind him because he knew these vehicles were close behind him they had the vehicle my client was on his side by side at fifty miles an hour with them moments before this happened he knew there were everybody was behind him he was the leader he said he always was the leader so we alleged that he failed to indicate that he was slowing as a one of our specific allegations of negligence that was not there was no motion the strike that is not posed by law but there is no testimony that he ever did signal so count two was a straight negligence count against mr hyslop that is the one that was summary judgment was entered it after the court had entered summary judgment on that it was brought up ok what count three is an allegation of acting in concert under the under the case and the judge said well ok since one of the defendants is out and i've said that there's no way in the world injury could if i did anything wrong then mr using gate was the defendant or count one would not have been acting in concert with someone who did nothing wrong so therefore even though i don't think the motion request summary judgment that the court granted the defendant that well there wasn't a common design on sunday i want to i think i made it clear in our in our library that we are proceeding under the first half of even though the defendant as well there was no evidence of a common design the same here acting in concert the first half of some a and because because of the fact that we have the uncontroverted testimony all these kids were travelling together they had been travelling together much of the afternoon until my client and the other young lady who was on the street high slopes focus for much or ride and then they decide to go off the high slope property and the defendant high school takes them out onto what was over route forty six seven that is closed now but then over what's called b road over the top of interstate seventy two onto a county road that once again is area that the defendant high slopes as and he admits he knows it is illegal to operate these vehicles on a public you can cross the highway to get from one when i grew up no one piece of property over property to another but you can't drive on the highway on a public highway and you can i drive them like in the ditch it was a proximate cause in the sense your honor if they hadn't been operating on that on that the two of them it never would have happened there one of the reasons kids like to operate these things on the highway is you can go sixty seventy eighty miles an hour on a on a heart broke you can do that across an agricultural field infielder a cornfield which you'll tear the vehicle up shake it shake your brains out probably end up you know that'll happen if you're going about three thirty or forty but that's one of the reasons kids and people like the appropriate decision to make this case conceptually is very easy to understand two four wheelers leave the high so presidents they are out on the road or i think there is probably ten or fifteen minutes twe 's the the gentleman that was driving the back he said i was driving too fast i saw didn't do anything to cause it and it happened dow investigating officer issued a citation to the back driver for aggravated reckless driving after conducting his own investigation so which using gay eventually pled guilty to driving too fast for conditions that's the fundamental set of facts which warrants what the trial court did here you've got a back four wheeler running into the five four wheeler and the guy who's on the back four wheeler says i was driving too fast i couldn't stop i couldn't get out of the way and there was nothing that i submit to cause this to happen and what was your ticket for the for the improper use of an a t v vehicle on  aggravated reckless strike my question is didn't your client give a statement to the police officer that he had merely had a passenger move to the side was traveling at fifty miles an at the time of the pleasure i had slowed down he didn't give us specific speed but he had slowed down and pulled up the end and moved closer to the side of the road that's what he told the police officer his testimony and his deposition is not inconsistent with that he said under oath that the deposition we were going about fifty fifty five miles an hour earlier in the track and early in the trip then we got up to lauch park which is miles per hour and nobody disputes that and then here comes michael using day crashes into him and in his view of those flip flop down about twenty yards those are the facts that the only way that i lead vehicle is responsible or liable in illinois is if you are here you have  trailing vehicle is the one that carries the bulk of the responsibility for good reason it's the the trailing the head hole that's got his vision there's no testimony here that ritchie hi so had great bikes at weren't working they work they did not know why when this collision occurred he wasn't jamming on his brakes the brake lights were not on the most that the plaintiff herself says and remember she is the passenger on the railing and she acknowledges that driver who's sitting immediately in front of her is taller than she is she can't see over his head the only way she loves is look and lean one side or the other she says all i remember is we were coming up on high so i didn't see any of this fairy lights michael that was the one she down because the vehicle you were on was going so fast i suppose that possible then she was asked do you agree with michael using gates testimony when he said the i slope as a culprit in this that said he had working very clients they didn't come on he had stopped in the roadway all they can say is now they're trying to sa everybody says they stocks are slowed down suddenly there is no testimony the most they can be said based on all the transcripts and we have all of that now the most that can be said is collision and and there's no testimony that sysop stopped there's no testimony that he had improper brake lights and there's no testimony that he stopped or slowed cited and if that's the all that before and the law says that if we've got all the deposition testimony all the testimony that would be presented at trial and that all that testimony would be presented at trial and pat would require the directing of  based on all that the summary judgment is appropriate and that's what we have here because there's not any evidence that i slope did anything wrong that's what the case is about  most that gable said was he kind of slowed down kind of fast one point in and fairly quickly another point but i think by all rights speeding at the time there's not any indication that i spoke with speeding at the time but but there was the court this court alledged that the fro had on the back vehicle that not have an agreement commit tortious act one racing down the the roadway passing each other back and forth they hadn't said let's race or let's fly down the road there was nothing to support and in concert claim against the leap the same thing applies here there's no evidence that there was any plan or it remain between i've sloper use of a committed certainly hyslop would not be a party to any agreement or plan to drive in a way where he was going to get ran from behind there's no evidence of that the investigating officer asked all of these people whether they had been racing and they all said no and there's no testimony given at the depositions to indicate that these kids were racing other land that the kids would often ride on private property where they could drive their eighty eight that's the rest of the story about deposition and i believe that your record as is more accurate than mine check transcript but i believe he indicated that at the time of his high slopes representation of what happened supplement to the police officers or olsen says i asked mr hyslop to tell me what happened he stated that they were writing a t v s and they decided to go out for right he stated that they were traveling north on exponent road he stated that he thought they were going around fifty miles an hour he stated that he realized he had a driver on back and slow down he stated that he looked over his left shoulder to see were using gate was as he moved into the ditch he stated that he did not see the other t v and then felt something run into the back of them he stated that he saw the other a t v flipped over several times and stopped his vehicle and he stated that he moved his a t v after you're slowing said there's no state to the effect oh we may have been going fifty miles an hour prior to this current but then at that time there was twenty specifically a sudden slowing may easily have the same elements of danger as a sudden stop and both come under the same principle of walk generally a motorist intending to stop or suddenly slow down his vehicle must use due care for his safety and the safety of others following such as equals following so close behind as they might be embarrassed by a sudden stop a sudden slowing trying to find using a says basically the same thing of course went to vehicles when one of the it was traveling so close immediately behind which is what using they said they were immediately behind that you don't have to slow first course course we must keep in mind you your honor i don't believe these vehicles are entitled to the rules of the road the rules of the road of illinois are you can't operate these kind of the holes on the highway they don't have rear view mirrors they don't have fenders there's a reason they are prohibited so to say walk ok this is a very simple case just like any other traffic garden variety traffic collision of two license vehicles probably on the road what happened and that's exactly what using gay says happened but just as he was slowing down he realizes he's so close behind him that using gate can't even swerve to the missa they're traveling they're moves right into using a staff and using gay tries to swerve around it as they touch wheels and the trailing vehicles goes catapulting so no stopping in the semantics of what we did he stopped quickly to the staff suddenly but one of the things we we may have lost sight of is that the evidence at this stage has to be viewed in his aspect most favorable to my quiet i'd listen as mr jackson says oh well she says later that she may be maybe mistaken or not he's arguing credibility or wait that's for the jury to decide when hearing all the evidence of the juxtaposition of how these two  business mrs wilson testified the vehicle that my client was on was the only one that was on the right side of the road she said that the high slope vehicle was actually traveling north in the in the left hand side but course once again these people had no business being on the road so there's enough this dispute the facts dispute the estimate testimony using case using