briefs what what is there about this case that requires justice requires that we do or that well i think the issue here is whether the complex law is an affirmative defense versus whether it can be brother to six point five there's a bit of a pray determine which has a more substantial relationship it is true that the state of where the injury occurred has the rebuttable presumption that that's the state's law that applies however we have to look at a number of different factors to determine if there is a different state with a more substantial relationship which factors are found under section one forty five in section sixty two of the restatement second second conflicts law under those factors i'm going to go with the one point five factors or worse there's four different factors under there the first is the place of the injury which is the basis of the rebuttable presumption the second is where the wrongful conduct occurred the third is the domicile residence of the parties and the fourth is where the relationship if any is centered now as to the first  illinois i've been trained in illinois i've been reading mostly now in a way and had already kicked another person in illinois and this injury could happen just as easily and i'll annoy as he did in missouri and  plaintiffs had bought licensed a car in illinois driving back to this home of twenty six years in michigan and while driving through eleanor back to michigan he rolls his car to court there said that although he wasn't that the residency of the two parties in this case is l in a way they're both residents of illinois at the time of the injury and they still are today and then the fourth factor is where the relationship if any will center now this particular factor is interesting because the defendant appellee is kind of all over the place on this one they don't address it at first in this say the nature of the relationship here was centered on there were spat writing which if true would still be l annoying because the testimony supports that these two parties had written together in eleanor and more than they had a misery and then in her appellee brief she states that the nature of their relationship was this being a part of this mutual friend group which again if true here in the faxes that our parties met now with the way through their husbands at the time they my client sold her house to the defendant in illinois they rode their horses more in illinois they went to social gatherings and socialize more in illinois it is true that there may be contacts to both missouri and illinois under this factor but it's clear that the relationship here was similar in illinois between these two parties and so in the six two factors there are a lot of the sixty factors that are minimally implicated in a personal injury by accident so there are some of the factors under there and the ones that are really relevant to this case is the policies of the former state which is  law of the common law policy of illinois is that we apply illinois law to conflicts between illinois residents which result in injury stay away residence that's exactly what we have here and  vacation from illinois to mexico injury by an illinois resident from the negligent congress of another eleanore president the court said we apply illinois law here that's what common law policy does and the sixteen that are in addition we have the illinois animal control act which the policy behind that act is the shift the burden of the injury to the person that's in the best relationship that i am in contrast the only wall that's been brought up by the defendant as to missouri that policy of illinois is stronger in this case to apply to it than missouri law is and so those additional sixty two factors along with the factors under one forty five support the contention that illinois has a more substantial relationship we appeal is based on the defendant's motion for summary judgment they brought two different arguments for summary judgment one was in a spreads if something a risk based on a release that my client signed and the second was an implied primary assumption of risk under the express assumption of risk my grief analyzes both missouri now in the way because i believe that it's in big u s c orders and if you assessed which one applied but the law is not too there a registration for my client signed this form a number of times she signed it when you first get to put the horse back riding place and on the very top it says very clearly registration form she always believed it was a registration form how many stables you needed to have you need to sign it in before you ever get on the property the release is farther down the page and actually to the release that's specific to my client is on the second page of the wanton conduct in recklessness which are to cause of action you can never release under missouri or illinois law whichever is deemed to apply to this particular account in i've cited case all it says for that reason when you try to that interpretation which is that it's all participants of the horseback riding which would be fifteen hundred people so those are the three ways the attackers suppress assumption or risk argument and then we attack them i primary sumption of risk argument because they're saying that horse kicking is an inherent risk of horseback riding and my client acknowledges that but that's not the risk that we have there is that we have here is a client has th is drinking while she's writing or force and she's doesn't trust reporters and she writes too closely by her own different definition of too closely to my clients who are which employees marketers all these people who are in a particular position that is furthering the business of the cross trail the horse back riding place so i have taken the position that it's a reasonable interpretation to nearly define participants as someone that's intimately involved in the business of cost country trail which my client is not involved with this really is a strange word to  so yeah it wouldn't be other employees but i might my definition of this is the catch off or anyone else that is particularly in all the business of the horseback riding place well that it could have said or anyone else involved in th respect you could always claim words don't mean what they seem to me but why should they be construed in such a person well in a given that many participants were to mean anyone writing or stack writing that would mean that that my my client i quickly intended to release fifteen hundred riders which wasn't her intention at all and she thought it was a registration form the entire time we had no testimony from cross country trails that's what it means so the only testimony we have in this case from the plaintiff is she says she didn't intend that and it's their duty their burden to show that she didn't and i think in matter of bird to sh release has to clearly notified the plaintive that she's releasing this one is entitled the registration different purposes we seem to get case after case where it's like lawyers don't bother to read the case law or even think about these motions  frantic knowledge this morning they did not she did not raise the issue of two dash six fifteen versus nineteen but instead acquiesced to proceeding under this particular motion and file the substantive response based on the conflict of laws and alice the court provided both parties full opportunity to conduct discovery and percent factual information and this to the plaintiffs then we may have a different situation here and the plaintiffs agree they suggest there was prejudice because they were somehow forced to prove their case at this pleading stage but that's not what happened at all plaintiff's case was the allegation regarding the horseback riding trip and whether there was a duty and liability and the injuries now back came into play here at all the facts that were cleaned from discovery that were presented to the court involved only the issues raised by those conflict of laws actors playing to wasn't required to prove her case at that early stage so there was no prejudice if this court finds that i was in error in bringing  fifteen motions then i certainly apologize to this court that there was no prejudice and and the matter should be should not be reversed on that basis i do want to address the conflict of laws analysis that was performed by the trial court and i think when this court considers this particular issue the one thing that you have to bear in mind before you do anything else is the statement from the townsend versus sears and roebuck case which said that there is a strong presumption that favors application of the wall of the state where the injury occurred and the plaintiff has argued that the law of missouri that this presumption is not really a clickable here because these parties will only fortuitously in missouri that this incident could have happened anywhere i beg to differ the cases that the plaintiff has relied on miller and murphy and shoals all involve factual situations that are very different from what we have those three cases all involve automobile accidents for parties were traveling across the country from one state to the ne something happened and there was an accident and the courts in examining those cases said you know it's complex it could have happened anywhere they were just drunk and this accident could have happened anywhere the fact that it happened in michigan or illinois or colorado or wherever was just happenstance ok and that didn't give that state then and the overwhelming need to have its laws applied to that accident our case the trail riding event at cross country trail rides is a distinct and different event from any other trail riding event that may occur you heard mr shark translated there were fifteen hundred people there for this trail ride over the labor day weekend this was a huge event it so happened that both sarah larsen indiana perkins and decided to go to this trailer writing event it just so happened that at this particular moment in time they were riding alongside each other and talking the the nature of the trail itself it was hilly at the point where they were there were a number of other people there on the trail ride we don't know what hold the other trail riding events may have been a mistake but this was a pretty killer specific event and this accident may not have just occurred anywhere else these two parties also voluntarily and specifically you left it to go to this location for the entire weekend they were just traveling through missouri you know maybe different your honour's if they were on horseback and just riding along on their own started off somewhere say in quincy and then ended up processing the river into hannibal and then they were going to come back around you know and if there's an incident there maybe that's different because it's just for they're going along in crossing state lines this is different this was an intentional meeting up in one particular location for a specific event so i do think the point is that this strong that there are other time tax that illinois has between the controversy and the parties that make illinois contacts more significant sufficient to overcome this strong presumption that favors  brief i would suggest to you that those things that's just not the case does illinois have contacts does illinois have an interest in controversy in the party absolutely yes involves two illinois residents who ended up on vacation in mexico ok and while in mexico of all things the plaintiff slips on and on top kernel of popcorn in that situation the illinois court decided that illinois interest in having illinois law applied was more significant why because if the plaintiff was left pursuing their case in mexico there was no recovery there was no right of recovery at all and illinois has a strong interest understandably and ensuring that its citizens have a right  between two illinois residents and if they would have allowed the application of mexico law there would have been no ability of the favor of our argument that misery the strongest presumption that favors missouri cannot be overcome illinois in this case that it's way different it's different than the animal control act but the difference and laws should not be what's controlling here ok certainly the plaintiff would like to have her case heard in illinois because she may have a better chance of recovery ok but that's not the issue she has a right of redress in missouri under missouri law that is similar to an equivalent illinois law so illinois interest here in ensuring that citizens have a right advantage to persons entered by a horse in a similar fashion as the applying to your room goes on to talk about under illinois law and she would not have to hire an expert witness analysis as to whether or not a set of laws are at bent basis to a particular party my argument is that it does not matter and i think part of part of the reason i say that is you have to look at the differing laws commonly referred to as the dog by law the one byte was adopted to counteract this one by intended to provide redress those individuals who may not be aware of the risk that a particular animal poses and may not be able to avoid that relates ok the illinois equine liability act and the missouri equine liability act are different they support different policies  and that most persons not all but most persons who are engaged in those equine activities are fully aware of the risks and they assume those risks voluntarily when participating in those equine activit so while the animal control act may provide a greater ability of an individual to recover certain defenses are not available that should not be the deciding factor here  you need to look at the nature of the event that we're talking about in equine activity you have a plaintiff and defendant for that matter who are both very experienced with the plaintiffs was aware of all of the risks associated with this so it's not like she's not like the individual in an animal control lack who encounters a dog for example and has no reason of knowing that that god made you question that that dog may have attacked other people and maybe she doesn't have any real way to avoid the dog maybe the dog runs up to her and bites or this is a factually different situation so i think you have to look at the totality of the circumstances when you're evaluating which and whether illinois has contacts that are more significant sufficient to overcome the strong presumption that missouri law should apply  last thing i want to touch on in this regard is the fact that missouri has a vested interest in ensuring the certainty of predictability in uniformity of result ok as i mentioned earlier this was not just a random horseback ride through the countryside this is the misery of this cross country trail it's the business party here but you have fifteen hundred people coming to this facility just over one weekend ok and is there a potential for there to be injury for there to be accidents for something to happen with fifteen hundred people share her course there is missouri would like to control what happens within its borders and if you've got the potential for lots of different injuries or accidents occurring and you allow the law of the state where the injured person resides to we believe the trial court's decision dismissing count one and ordering that missouri law apply should be affirmed by th if there are no other questions on that topic i am going to move ahead i do want to address kind of the final conversation that was taking place here regarding the release and the language in their release the release was provided for you in our brief portions so while this release at the very top did say something to the effect of registration form also about halfway down the page in capital letters it said release of liability they didn't just say it once said it three times because deanna perkins and signed this release the read different times for herself and for two minor children that were with her it is totally irrelevant totally irrelevant that deanna parkinson did not read this release it is completely irrelevant what she believed it to be the case law that we have case a haynes case where we have an individual who have only a second tour third grade education standing in line to get into i think it was an automobile race and he felt pressured there were lots of people in line and was handed a foreman he just signed it and it was a release and a waiver of liability for the court and said that's in forcible it doesn't matter that he didn't read it he could have even this individual of the second or third grade education would have read the form if you didn't understand it he could have passed and he didn't do either of those things which was a forcible plaintiff's other primary argument regarding the terms of the releases that the terms are ambiguous  we both cited a pariah t of cases those cases you have to look at the language of the release that was at issue in each of those cases and there are cases relied upon by the pla provide language that is distinguishable from the language that we have primarily most of those releases failed to include language specifically that the person signing the release was releasing the owner the owner of the facility from negligence for their own actions are really says that our release talks very specifically about waiving liability participant consistent with common rules of contract construction should be given it plain and ordinary meaning participants include anyone participating in the trail writing that jackson yes or stress in you well i think those are two different things i would say release of liability for an event with fifteen hundred participants i can't say if that's unconscionable what i think this court should look at is what deanna perkins and testified to in her deposition ok she was fully aware of the number of participants there she was aware of the other things that mr chartrand mentioned she knew that people were drinking beer on this trail right she anyway and she said with out hesitation yes i said if you realize that by signing the stock you meant you were releasing cross country trail rides and all the other participants w signed it anyway yes did you know sarah corson was a participant yes she also admitted in her deposition that she knew there was a risk of injury she knew that horses could kick she knew that a horse could kick regard less of whether the rider did anything or didn't do anything that that was just something that he can do so whether she read their release or believed it to be registration form is irrelevant had she read she testified that she would have done that it would have voluntarily gone ahead with the trail riding with not have done anything different only and although they might be factually different and trust me i tried to search for a case cite this had to be spot on actually the general principles of those case remain the same has to work to its injuries and in particular i direct your attention to murphy again he's driving from illinois to move to michigan he wasn't in michigan and going to michigan for two it is three he had planned trip there to go to his house of twenty six years and they said that even though he wasn't in michigan for two to slee it could have just easily happened in illinois the injury could have happened for to me to see even if he had a name trip somewhere else and so i i think that the general principle that applies here this injury could have happened just mean these trails could be substantially similar to the one that the kid actually occurred we just don't know it would be speculative at best to suggest that these trail right she performed in illinois were somehow different trains the ones she performed  simply don't know and so i don't think that those are unique factors and i don't think that she supports or earth with any facts in that regard i mean this is a horseback riding if it this was a fifteen hundred supported in mexico all those factors weighed in favor of mexico but the other two factors under one forty five we didn't paper valid going in addition to this common law policy that we apply all annoyed to conflicts between when we residency injur so even if you don't agree with my argument that if were true to see occurred sir and now the reasonable choice by the by you got i understand those first two factors would weigh in missouri the second two factors would weigh in illinois here and then we had in