what is this appeal what about this appeal is about damage specifically emotional stress says i i keep going back to those who did this is not our state of a home or a bill of rights the right to be free from invasion of privacy supreme court that for a direct cause of action for in i t t the next lesion infliction of emotional distress there must be physical committed wrongful death against the plaintiffs in this case the parents therefore they did not have a free standing case but they negligent infliction of emotional distress in a claim of liability for negligence or other personal tort other personal tours in which the act mission of the defendant cause emotional distress for which damages may be appropriate where the claim of emotional distress i the court as to why special restrictions which include the requirement of a contemporaneous physical impact or injury so what's the  without emotional distress they are the damages it's part of the element of the case no one most of the stress if you have most of the stress it has to be and is anchored to that i'm not following you well be that again just well i guess my point is is that the i believe or the liability of a business in negligence for the intentional or of business invites or has a situation where a human being regardless of gender is vulnerable then if their priest risk of being vulnerable then he duty is imposed upon the business invite or to acknowledge that risk in do what is necessary under the appropriate circumstances what is  come in the locks didn't work or they were defective and it was easy for a perpetrator to come in and indeed in this activity against either one of male or female rawest recover for emotional distress so all plaintiffs were allowed to recover emotional distress damages in that case without having to be in the requirement just as they were do you know negligence planted all that have a negligence claim in illinois when you're pleading purely emotional distress damages i'm talking about absent meeting the r you both used the term planet fitness and then food and but there is no such company named planet fitness that's just a trademark we're called play for a franchise there's many reasons for that where the franchise or were located in new only had to allege physical impact or physical injury but in order e mails or establish the essential element of duty they also had to show that there was either wrist special relationship or a voluntary undertaking and i fail to room new hampshire that's my only we have no special relationship of business and right right right right so there's no special relationship to establish a duty here that may or may not apply to the franchisee but it definitely does not time that doctrine applies there's no exceptions to that clarke all the other cases know about and discussing religion fortune of emotional distress not apply to the doctrine of voluntary undertaking it's the consensus that's true and it's certainly true of us because we're in a new future we don't have the ability to do so they leave themselves out of court under a voluntary undertaking theory specifications does not constitute a voluntary undertaking to make sure that those guidelines are implemented or to control the actual physical location where those guidelines are supposed to be so the mere fact that we would have we have a less sufficient allegations of fact this show that they did have a good they did including the fact that they call themselves a franchise against the franchise or in new hampshire or wherever corporation they gave the council also didn't  to the justices the burger king case the per case they did impose my ability on the franchise or under similar allegations of das is it would be within any other personal  condition to exist on the premises which even though he had no use of their dangerous condition they did not do