accident he didn't die because of what happened there that he died several months later on related causes the issue is is as follows that the evidence that was produced the trial was sufficient to missions that we have that the defendant was a fact there he was driving in the other section and at that point it was there he was driving on cass and he did not have a staff sign you know because the judicial admission that they didn't let that those two cars were in the intersection and there was no longer of us and any other cars i think that is enough because there was another if they had answered it they could not good it near him so that those two cars were in that intersection at the time good one question i might have to consume that point but i don't have to concede that point because the that the case defendant ever admitted that he was in the intersection and i ask that you look at the record to what he's actually farms and i think it's on page twenty four of the record the allegations paragraphs one and two of the complaint it the intersection at the intersection doesn't say the time doesn't say how anyone was operating paragraph two it's great that you know paragraph two says they have said time and place the defendant ernest and jordan was the operator of a motor vehicle that was southbound on st it's intersection with castree in the city of joliet in the county of will state of illinois never that first of all we only admitted date a resumption of the statue at an intersection where one part is fast and the other party doesn't but we don't have any yet actions or admission there testimony of any kind in this case to show that mr jordan ever entered that intersection  i don't know if he backed up and turned around i don't know if he's dead we didn't talk to him so we don't know what happened but i can't presume that and as the judge below pointed out you know maybe the plaintiff swerved to avoid hitting a we don't know all of another thing that i'd like to correct the plaintiff's attorney talked about degree and in the intersection and police officers police officers seeing degree at the intersection there was no evidence of that whatsoever the police officer did not talk about debris at the intersection there is no evidence of degree at the intersection and this separates this case from one of the cases that the plaintive sighted and relies on this case is more like the cases that we cite there is no evidence of any degree of this scene of the accident no skid marks no damage to our rails to show what happened or to help locate the point of impact police officer f told him and frankly and the police officer did not even testify as any admissions by mr jordan mr jordan never admitted that he was in this accident never a minute damage at mr kerry's car never seen him at the intersection never having any idea how it came together or whether in fact it came together maybe maybe the damages from some other excess we don't know and the plaintiff has the burden of proof and the other thing i'll address the medical records that counsel were for to first of all i think you're correct that this is not admissible evidence of how the the x and happened but think absent the transcript of how this big particular exhibit was addressed by the court the court has to assume that the court lo promptly ruled that it improperly directed verdict in favor of the defendant  in this case there was simply no evidence that the defendant drove past a staff sang no evidence of where the defense how was the time the accident no evidence that the had ever entered the defendant collided with the plane if there was no evidence of where this accident happened whether it was in the intersection or whether it was outside of the intersection impact that doesn't open the door for a waiver of the dead man's act it doesn't open the door for the plaintiff to testify about the accident if the court were to rule that way i submit that the dead man's act could easily be avoided in every case simply by having the adverse party blurt out very testimony that the act bars and i think you have to enforce the rule as you said sometimes it may work a hardship sometimes it helps but it is the law and in these be enforced the simple fact that an accident may have happened is not sufficient to support a word for the defendant that i'm sorry for the plaintiff has the burden to prove not just an accident happened but they have to present some evidence that some negligence by the defendant and the plaintiff had to do that in this case so the court below properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and i would ask that you affirm the judgment of the trial or thank officer saw the damage to the two cards and then i have a presumption that if the defendant has a stop sign at that intersection at my diary has the right away that i have that there is a prior patient case that the defendant