review of judge jeffrey lawrence's decision on conflict of laws what this court has to reach is a decision as to whether illinois has a more significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties  right yes or in townsend the injured plaintiff was a child who lived in michigan whose father bought the lawnmower in michigan and the injury took place in michigan in this michigan law just because the accident occurred there must we assume that definition no michigan law applies unless you didn't suffer not really an exception your honor but there  is under the townson case under section one forty six the court looks first for where did the accident occur under illinois conflicts law which admittedly the collision took place in michigan that is not any type of strong presumption the real test which the court said in townsend as well as an interest all in s are which and both are sales all four cases from the supreme court which i cited at the outset is which state has the most significant contact with the occurrence and with the parties so if it's if nothing is specific as to which state has a preponderance then you go with the state where the accident occurred that's the lesson from townsend but intense and there were a lot of factors that argued in favor michigan i would submit your honor the only case the only factor in this case that argues for michigan is that's where the collision took place the defense has tried to say well you know that we start with the car the plaintiff pleaded had an unsafe condition because of the roof structure etc however and they say obviously the car was designed to michigan but under one of the cases they cited burlington northern the conduct of non protease is not relevant to the conflict of law decision p to this appeal and to the case that will be tried out of this because of their bankruptcy they're gone so the fact that chrysler designed this case in michigan is of no moment to our conflicts analysis moreover as we pointed out in our brief factually chrysler never tested anything to do with how this car performs in a rollover which is our defect that we've claimed we're not pleading that the car was defective because it rolled over we're acknowledging joe fell asleep at the wheel as he did he went into the median and had a low speed roll went through quarters of a roll the wind chill flopped down the frame flopped down and he suffered deflection quadriplegic injury we're saying this car didn't protect him well in a rollover in the testimony that we've cited from and i think you're on one of the points that they raise is that they claim joe joe and pat both misused the vehicle and that they assumed the risk of these injuries by buying a convertible if they assumed the risk which we denied because they weren't told that by the way this windshield structure doesn't protect you in a roll but if they are claim to have assumed the risk that assumption occurred when they bought the car you know park in you know on that occurred then and there certainly occurred in michigan absolutely to the extent that the defense wants to say it has to do with him having taken the sleeping pill at the first rest stop in michigan i think that's random and arbitrary and there's no proof that that caused him to fall asleep it did you take a step backwards and say well dr farrell in oak in oak lawn prescribe it to him so if you want to say a word of the pill come from a came from illinois i honestly would say that that's not a very important fact where he took the pill because there's no proof that he was under the influence we know he fell asleep that's obviously if if that case is proven to the jury's satisfaction they can assign some fault if they wish for contributory fault however that that is michigan conduct which for conflicts purposes to me should not be important there were no has the same laws against unsafe driving and falling asleep at the wheel as they do in michigan there's not a conflict on that we don't need to look at michigan law to talk about contributory negligence in driving a car so i have to submit that that doesn't advance the analysis on the issues that we're dealing with is was a plaintiff have to prove prove to prevail and what damages are recoverable the points on which we differ not one of them has to do with falling asleep at the wheel  i would ask your honour's to consider one of the cases cited by the defense the miller vs paradox case which is the mine accident case the mine was partly in indiana partly in illinois and the court was considering what wanted to apply on the issue of contribution and the court ultimately decided illinois law should apply what they looked at and i think their final conclusion which is i think at nine  applying indiana law would not advance any indiana policy while at the same time undermining illinois policy applying illinois law it would advance illinois policy without underlying any indiana policy what are the policies at issue when a state chooses to enact laws reducing the liability of manufacturers or retailers in its state obviously is to protect the defendants in that state to protect local industry for the state of michigan to want her illinois policy which has uncapped damages and a fair system of tort liability in manufacturing defect cases and design defect cases is there to protect illinois consumers from untoward conduct by illinois defendants if this court were to apply illinois law we would be advancing the illinois policy at no expense to at no expense to michigan's policy michigan's policy is to protect michigan and respectfully the defendant in this case shouldn't benefit by it thank you ron well here is a liability was a stereo system no one alive when the signals i agree with your on are just but for the fact that the injuries accident could just as easily you know it's a three state trip it's only you know an hour and a half but it's a three state trip it could happen anywhere along the way your honor is not dreaming i joe would usually take one of a couple of routes and he would typically stop at the rest stop that at e most important question in this case how can this case the facts of this case you distinguish from the only supreme court's very clear mandate in townsend it can't be distinguished from townsend and it is essential to remember that townsend was considering a personal injury claim under michigan law so any policy arguments any claims about the appropriateness of allowing a party to recover under illinois law versus michigan law those have already been ruled on by the illinois supreme court they've already been rejected so important to no one piece of language from the towns and decision that concerns councils last argument related to the policies of these states the only supreme court specifically said and i quote we trust that characterization such as quote pro consumer or quote pro business will not often appear in future choice of law cases this is not a case in which it should be considered whether the policies of illinois versus the policies of michigan warn claim all relates to the conduct of chrysler it's how the car was designed how the car was tested who made decisions about running lights desperate lights how the apparatus of the convertible was actually to work all of that was designed created and put into place in michigan it was a michigan designed vehicle and it is also essential to know that although the plaintiffs do reside in illinois and certainly the defendants can't dispute that it's not as your honor is pointing out a mere fortuity that this accident happened in michigan this isn't a situation where on the one and only time of officer murphy's life he decided to drive to texas and was injured in texas this is a situation where every weekend the summer fee made this trip every weekend he stopped at the same rest up in michigan in this case the conduct at issue the ingestion of the sleeping pill occurred in michigan the incident occurred in michigan that creates what is contrary to counsel suggestion a strong presumption for a michigan law and that again was addressed by the townsend court there was a question in townsend about whether there is a presumption in favor of these scientists of the injury that that state's law should apply the townsend court emphatically stated yes there is such a crazy option that a local law of the state where the injury been purchased in michigan by the company the defendant in that case was sears and illinois corporation the waiting mower was not designed in michigan it wasn't nothing related to the design of manufacture of the writing mower concern in michigan it was only the residents of at issue which is the negligent claim is a failure to one claim that does concern design manufacture that was completed in michigan it's also important to consider the procedural posture of this case in this case there was a strict liability claim pending against me and carries that case was dismissed under the distributor's act and that was appealed to discredit this court affirmed that dismissal went back down to the circuit court however plaintiff has filed a motion to reinstate that strict liability claim that's been pending in front of the district court in the circuit court it has not been ruled on yet so depending on the status of that would again should we could end up in a situation where the circuit court decides to reinstate that strict liability claim then clearly clearly the conduct related to the design and manufacture of that vehicle is all centered in michigan there can't be any question about that so it's simply not correct to suggest that the only parties of issue in this case are illinois parties really relationship to michigan was a fortuitous or an unfortunate event that occurred in michigan this is a case that is strongly centered in michigan and because of that michigan wash should be the law in this case it's also necessary to consider the fact that when you look at the elements required under the choice of law analysis again there needs to be a showing of a more or greater significant relationship to another state other than michigan in this case that that has not been established in this case the four practical considerations identified by section one forty five of the restatement are place where the injury occurred here there's no dispute the injury occurred in michigan place where the contacts causing the injury occurred here the conduct allegedly causing the injury was the failure to warn in that vehicle it was the design manufacturer failure to warn all decisions made in michigan whether there was an owner's manual whether there were suggestion so by that i suggest that the manufacturer makes the determination about what information is included in the owner's manual whether there are warning stickers on the car itself those decisions are made by the manufacturer and communicated to vehicle wouldn't be the entity making those decisions could that distributor be held liable under the only products ah yes but that's not the analysis that we're looking at for choice of waffen s s we're looking at is ultimately who made those decisions and in this case the entity that made those decisions was chrysler in michigan so is there there is because of the negligence allegations in this case and certainly we dispute meaning the defendant dispute that there is any liability in this case but the arguments made by the plaintiffs suggest yes you are liable because of your decision to distribute this car your decision to sell this car your negligence in selling this car that was negligently designed that's the allegation liability in this case and if you bring in the strict liability claim that motion which is pending in the circuit court hasn't been ruled on yet then it's even more clear that this is the one link in the chain of this vehicle in the stream of commerce that's what leads back into a determination of who made those decisions as your honor is suggesting and it's clear that those decisions were made by chrysler in michigan so that's the second practical consideration under section one forty five that favors michigan  the final two one concerns down the sale residence nationality place of business of the parties although certainly it is true that the murphys are residents of illinois again and it's important to remember this wasn't a one time trip through michigan was every week this summer home or weekend home that they had on for twenty seven years that was in michigan and then finally the place where the relationship between the parties is centered here it's both michigan and illinois the vehicle was purchased in illinois they are residents of illinois but the use of the vehicle at the time of this incident was in michigan vehicles designed and manufactured in michigan with those practical considerations in mind there is not a clear greater relationship to illinois law versus michigan law and because that hurdle cannot be overcome michigan why should apply in this case there are no further questions yes that this court agreeing with the circuit cour counsel made a comment completely unfounded in the record i believe she said the manufacturer makes all decisions about warnings that are to be given to the consumer and all those decisions are made in michigan there's no record reference to that it's not cited in the briefs and it's not the fact what we have pleaded and it's the in the supporting record at page c one forty three we have sued me kerri strug negligence failure to warn that the vehicle provided no protection to a belted occupant in a rollover be it in the form of a strong windshield frame it in the form of a pop up roll bar or otherwise that's what we have pleaded that has nothing to do with what the owner's manual chooses to say about whites and how that convertible works that is all irrelevant what we have is an absence of evidence that man carries provided any warning and if your honour's will happen to notice the record there is a man carries witness who gave testimony no warning to that effect was given the murphys received no warnings about this vehicle will not provide protection in a low speed rollover were rollover of any kind that windshield comes down in the road in the rollover they were not advised of that joe's testimony was he thought that the windshield crane frame provided protection like a roll bar that is the uncontested testimony at this point the record the council also told the court that you should not consider the relevant policies of the forum as to whether or not something and took a line from townsend whether something's pro business or pro consumer recognizing that comment in townsend however that ignores other language in towns and particularly of page one fifty nine as well as the restatement section six which among the seven factors this court is to consider are the relevant policies of the form how does how does illinois express its policies constitution laws and wars and customs what are the laws we don't believe in caps on damages according to our supreme court we don't believe in other things those are expressed in our laws can refuse to enforce at a state law that is repugnant to illinois more's and policies and public policy and that also applied to the gambling cases which i've cited to the court counsel pointed out families now ok in illinois it doesn't reverse the findings of those cases which is illinois courts do not enforce out of state laws that are repugnant to our morris lastly tencent did not address the eight differences in illinois law that we're addressing in this case through whatever choice counsel made in that case they only raised three differences in illinois law to the same strict liability cap on noneconomic damages the third one that they addressed there was the availability of punitive damages against the manufacturer under of michigan law if you don't have a thing illinois law you do that has nothing to do with our case this is a purely compensatory damage case so we're dealing with six other factors of illinois law that counts and didn't even touch upon for kind of look at joe and think he was crazy for taking that route but still business there's no reason he couldn't if i think the choice of the route is not important and the fact that he had a house there is also not important in light