see seven years old on your from nineteen two thousand and eight when he was hit by an ambulance and died as a result of the injuries plaintiff complaint was filed in april of two thousand and nine discovery was completed so depositions were taken and after forty years of litigation the case had a trial date set for november of two thousand on the eve of trial the supreme court of illinois the supreme court changed the law in illinois with its decision and will prior welcomes a private ambulance company could be liable for a regular sample of projects plaintiff's complaint alleging essentially immunize private ambulance corporations from ordinary members since as far as i know welcomes the first time the supreme court of online has carved out an immunity for a private corporation contrary to illinois law which favors liberal amendments to pleadings and she relies on section six sixteen of the code and cross and its work and she challenge the defendant if they would not that it's a minor because minors have specifically have carved out a specific statute of limitations by the legislature to protect minors and i believe the courts and eleanor have always protected my above the rights of all others response brief completely ignores section six sixteen which allows for a complaint to be amended at any time before final judgment and i'm just and reasonable terms which may enable litigations and the instant case that we're here for today a fully developed factual record and was ready for trial but the fact that this case had survived the pleading stage and already one motion for summary judgment with the same defendants gives weight to plaintiff's positions and does not support the defendants defendant also claims that crosses distinguishable because the grounds offered for a denial of the motion to him and related prejudice by the amendment plaintiff stopped filed and i doubt that they will stand in front of you today and claim that they are prejudiced or surprise for them and of course the defendant has is distributed the court typically says x dollars go to the adults and why dollars go to the other beneficiaries of the state whether they be minors or not depending on their dependent are or were they were well what they would get we wouldn't know but who they are yes in my opening three i lay out who they are and and their ages and when the actual statute of limitations unique there were actually specific allegations filed against the parents in this case for them to return negligence so depending on what the jury decided it could be that the heirs the siblings were the only people parents are not married he is a separate heir he's also been sued in this case i believe that the rights of adults and minors are separate and distinct and that's why i believe that i have a duty and the administrator has a duty to protect the rights of the minors separately which is why i specifically asked for leave to amend on their behalf because after well and clearly knew the parents were going to be done so i thought i in order to maintain and apply it may be that the parents get nothing but none of that could be determined until there's actually a jury trial with percentages of negligence to turn over good but because i believe i can protect the rights of minors i asked separately for leave to amend on their behalf and that was almost it was indeed huge obviously since it was information there was no proposed the main point presented to the court that is correct i indicated to the court that i just wanted to change the word negligence so well indicated i specifically wanted to file well for i want an allocation for the minor planet before this actually limitations has run it shouldn't happen but it happened here and this honorable court can fix it in addition to failing to meet the challenge i gave them they fail to argue several of the reasons  why the amendment should have been allowed that alone prove them the law it is an amendment should be allowed when for factors are met the first factor is difference will be that the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant's conduct proves the level of will from want to conduct and not simple negligence pat and any allegations of contributory negligence should be thrown out the supreme court extinguish the claims of the parents afterwards and only the minors and now the cover up the case was ready for trial there is no prejudice if the score allows the plaintiffs from that there's also no claim they were surprise they claim my motion was an afterthought but notably they have not claimed that they were surprised by it the third and final factor as it is of your position to argue that there is no difference in defend were if you can prove them to support a finding of negligence as well as well for more than i do under the circumstances yes number one it was an ambulance but i believe we're striving too fast for conditions and number two there is also evidence there's a specific bar that when you're driving an emergency vehicle like that you're not allowed to put anything in the windshield to obstruct the view and there is evidence in this case that there was a box of latex glove in the windshield in the delivery of them now they were just going to the third and final factor which overlaps i think with the fourth factor of timeliness is whether an amendment should be allowed  from one conduct although as plaintiff's contention that there is evidence in this case that was not an issue decided by the trial court nor is it an issue on appeal plaintiff it appreciate her right to a jury to decide whether defendant's conduct of driving an ambulance so fast that it can't avoid the second argument plaintiff made an opening brief is that the administrator should have been allowed b to him back on behalf of a minor beneficiaries of the state because it's actually limitations has not run as their claims i believe special consideration the already goes to that yes and i'm sure for not to walk down that line since it didn't get received but yes it does but at that point the council council makes a comment that we didn't address to six sixteen brief and i think we did from the standpoint of as counsel said on four factors just a proposed amendment cure the defective pleading focuses on the predators timeless in the previous opportunity to mend the interesting thing is the cases that plan is must meet all four of the  has ruled that you can't plead negligence against an ambulance company in the situation and the only avenue is will form one and so the question then becomes has the attempted purported amendment cured that and so i think the first step and we point this out in our in our brief in council really doesn't address this very very closely in her reply but the case law lock does not college lowry all talks about lead to a man will not be considered an abuse of discretion where the movement does not present the proposed amendment or specific indications contents now obviously we don't have a written document to focus on so we have to rely on what he's telling us as far as what was presented and again i'm with it with outrage to care for the train carefully arm our  supplemental i think i'll leave that argument for the way we phrased it in our in our motion supplement cases simply calling the activities here wolf on juan when they've employed throughout the entire case is negligence the i don't think that's the case it on the first of all i think the prejudice a factor in this case continues for years and you know allegations or whatsoever of will from want and i said that's important for these reasons i can guarantee if there were evidence and there were facts that we give rise to think so i think the standpoint of whom we're going to defend that case by put in evidence that most all our activity was an equal chance but but i don't think we need to establish all for the factors that were set for some loyal academy and that was one of the reasons that we focused on case we don't need any more depositions everything's ready to go if that's the case where the allegations well the trial does look at that he made a decision that there are no evidence here there's no facts here that would support yeah legations of willful and wanton and i think we have to remember that when we look at whether or not it was  visa discretion now whether or not we have to sallisaw for factors in address the credits aspect in our preferred i don't think that's prejudicial to our position i think we can establish the others on the timeliness factor i think we have that from the standpoint if these facts are so imbedded in this case where were the allegations before hand they're not there now if you'll notice when the complaint was originally drafted the city was involved there will form one allegations in that so they knew where they were at that point but they can't draft him based on the facts is she saying the would not impact it you're right so when we look at this case we see a trial judge that has knowledge of all the evidence as it's going to come in in the trial just after hearing the arguments of the summary judgment understands that the real dispute is how fast was this field gone we've got a witness who've you know its credibility was all over the place he says i think it was moving fast and then he says well i really don't know what the speed limit was i really don't know how fast i was going and we've got other witnesses who says we were under the speed limit not the crazy question in fact obviously but does that evidence that dispute alone this out rice to the level of establishing bass fishing fleet will phone one i don't think it does there has to be some aspect of intent and when we look at the difference between a negligence case as a play and they will from one case the course is a distinction between those and generally found in a different allegations as to the state of the mind of the defendant at the time of the breach and that's right i was going to instruction i don't think we're i don't think either of us are talking about this case involving an intentional will from one to four but the question is where is the allegation where are the facts that would support the conclusion or an allegation of utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of another that is missing a bad ass bitch is missing so when we look at the complaint as she's got it dressed up the negligence allegations with the wolf on one  we say where on those allegations is is anything that would allow us from the facts to draw a conclusion that there's an utter indifference to our conscious disregard for another safety it's not there is it your position  again without the necessary allegations that there is some status of intent something that would allow the conclusion or an interest in utter indifference or conscious good denies an opportunity to amend and there's been no postum in point that the court can say that that's sufficient to say there is no reason stretching now here what we're doing is what we're what we're really saying as well without that proposed him in a complaint without really anything like a court transcript that would allow us to have a do we're going to go on representation of counsel this is what was made i'm not sure that the court really would want to go in that direction but i'll say this even if you are going to look at her representations and say this is how she's going to dress up the complaint if it were  motion but we also offer a post a minute point here it is for the courts review we have the hearing we have comments we have the oral comments made there's no motion to reconsider saying well this is this is what we would this is what we're proposing we don't have any of that taking place  trial court to look at or for this court to review and i hate to see us make an exception that would allow us to come up at the appellate court and say well this is what i really meant to say is what i said when we don't have a transcript or anything to document that so i think that's a serious problem for this case and for them to with all the comments that were made about about this case involving minors and the rights of minors i'm not trying to be called what i'm saying in this case is it doesn't matter if there's one minor or a thousand miners in this case the question is this is a state of th the case is a council cited he didn't respond to some of them because frankly they don't apply their own of quiet all because they were looking at is something told do they have a right to file something that or later date has in mind there's a claim filed here there's a claim on file here it and for the kids are attached to how many minors or whether we consider these claims she's talking about there's a claim on file by the state the state has the ability to pursue the claim but to recover for the liability then it can worry about the beneficiar different questions and it shouldn't come into the mix here in the situation so again i'm not trying to sound cold and decide to say that the real question here regardless of how she's dressed it up is is this proposed amendment a viable one and it's not was instituted and is and is not actually binding precedent under these circumstances so many years later where clearly what the that have not run in this case the court has a duty i believe to protect the rights of minors above all orders above all others and the trial court failed to recognize the rights of the minors and protect the minor beneficiaries of the state don't be sympathetic to minors playing this is trying to evoke your sympathy and get you to depart from established law if that's what i was really trying to do you would have seen pictures of this seven year old boy siblings his bicycle the damage the ambulance everything plane of focus on the defended ignored much of what plaintiff argued which is the law on why her moment should have been allowed and their claim that my plea for special treatment for minor should fall on deaf ears is laughable when the courts no longer go out of their way to protect minors or those under a the supreme court did an about face the mother had waived had to waive her claims in order to tell her duty as administrator of the estate and put the minors claims more important and took priority over her own plate it was not asking for a trial court abuse its crushing when it failed to allow the administrator to amend the negligence allegations to will form one allegations on behalf of the minors who said suits who had not yet run and because of the abuse of discretion plain and respectfully request this honorable