fifteen minutes the portion that you'd like to have for rebuttal i'd like to reserve for man's ok but we're pretty liberal you're the only case this morning i hope that i don't have to cut you off county the standard to review in these cases as the court knows is the abuse of discretion standard and that has been stated as the standard of no reasonable person would adopt a view taken by the court in this case we believe that the abuse of discretion has occurred in two days two different ways both procedurally as well as in the analysis of the circuit court first the court's written opinion is is evidence that it's clear the court misapplied the a political balancing test the test is supposed to be careful wayne of all the factors in a case and then for a determination of whether the factors we substantially in favor of the transfer to a more community forums and we think it's clear if you look at the wording of the circuit course decision each time the court evaluated the individual factors it then weighed the individual factor against the plaintiff's choices for an individual and in that situation upon finding that each individual factor did not w criteria which the court did the court covered over as well it did look at each factor it with your honor's writing knowing that it's cumulative it's kind of like the blind men that look at the elephant if you look at a single piece of it you're not getting a full picture of the handed well i disagree your honor i believe that it did state that it was going to give a reduced deference to the plaintiff based upon not being the location of the accident not the location where the plaintiff is from and in fact there is no nothing connecting and i've never argued that no deference should we give ends of the point i simply indicating on a sliding scale that with not no connections to county the plane of choice of form should be given the least amount of deference and indicating that new in when you  you look at the factors i do believe that they way in favor of transferring the first factor you have the convenience of the parties and in this back to the core in the key to that it doesn't weigh in favor of transfer now the two parties that we have involved in this case is the man's corporation their wisconsin corporation as the court noted there is its approximately equal distance between their taking the side of other factors that would be inconvenient to the travel to cook county compared to your own county you still look at the other defendant and with gi more corporation they're located in white cite county which is fifty miles from princeton as opposed to one hundred thirty miles to chicago and that is clear if you have one defendant that's equal distance and another defendant that has to more than double the  lived in true your honor and that gets the next factor than expected looks at the access to the other evidence including the testimony and in this case as the plaintiff in the court pointed to every man and prior cases on that when you have the rule is that if you have a mixture of different counties witnesses from different counties that the court won't abuse of discretion in transferrin but when you look at amber man compared to our case and lisa amber man there was substantial connections to count including a month worth of medical treatment six different surgeries that occurred in cook county and different factors that if cook county a factor whereas in this case we do have several different counties and bald in the case but none of them touch co county and so therefore you know that every man's house and and their progeny are and their cases before it don't say that if you have several different counties involved it's appropriate to pick a completely unrelated county to fix yourself  cost which came out recently that's none some support to the idea that it is a circuit court can still analyze distances without having to have an affidavit from each and every single witness stating that it's more inconvenient when you analyze th situations where we have witnesses it would have to travel fifty miles versus two hundred four miles and i do think that even without an affidavit you can compare those distances but what i think is more significant in this case is the  necessity of viewing of the site and i think in this case the circuit court took the standard from am a man and other cases from the fifth district that with products liability cases the need for sa it is diminished and i understand it he such as amber man where we have a forklift on a flat parking lot being used for the court indicated this chord in the key did that forklift could be brought downtown chicago there's no no there's no external factors there's no environmental factors that are really going to affect the operation the same thing cases that it bases its ruling on such as such as brown where the manufacturer of an auto hauling trailer was i was sued and there was no environmental factors it just had to do with the operation the trailer seen thing in hinshaw where that was a motor vehicle accident in that case there was products liabilities cases brought with a drunk driver that was broadcast morris the motor vehicle accident settles out so therefore a site visit was unnecessary if they only but there's nothing at all and they're not in the energy more frustrated still and that the concentration of this case is solely on th wheel well that's why i think that i want to talk about the process liability more when it relates to the public factors but as it relates to the wheel you're taking away significant defenses of the defendant and defense is a product liability cases include that only the comparative negligence of the plaintiff but also misuse of the product as well as as some share of the risk in this case we have a plaintiff who went to an off road course it's license walnut illinois it's cover several acres it has tracks running through trees running through streams and i think that a viewing by a jury is going to be much more significant than such cases ammar man where use don't have the environmental could change wouldn't change and they say could change they but they don't say that it has i don't know if it has or not op and that's going to be something that will be developed during the discovery of the haze and that certainly will be a question of what location on this track did you have your accident has it changed since and i can't find that i'm going to pose a point and that's something that i'm not going to find out to further on in discovery in the case we're at the beginning now i don't want to abuse the course allowance me taking too much time but i did want to mention as to product liability cases on the public factors i think big hammer man has been read too broadly i do think that when you have a product liability case it is an argument that both counties have an interest in the litigation however i do believe based on the prior supreme court cases such as doubting it states clearly that the location of the accident has the most and just because a pleading has been done to indicate the product liability it just means that cook county has an interest but if your county has a greater interest and we're looking at the relative interests of these counties book but if that on that basis if this this is a specific item that's why nationally and so the different public factors in the case that over in place the importance of the fact it is a products liability case and diminishes all the other factors in this case i'm i would like to reserve a couple minutes thank you as i believe is expressed clearly in our brief in this matter what we're really looking at here is an abuse of discretion stand and therefore the only thing the courts should be analyzing is whether or not the trial court abus both parties agree that this is an abuse of discretion standard the courts have noted that in abuse of discretion will occur only when the court refuses to use conscientious judgment ignores recognized principles of law or as arbitrarily and in this a ten page ruling on this matter after fully hearing all that or for reading all the briefs and analyzing all the evidence in this case i don't think that it can be said that the trial court of use discretion i don't think he sees me i don't think it can be said that they acted arbitrarily or refused to use consciences judgment obviously the trial court issued a well thought out opinion after analyzing all the factors and determine that this matter should favor the plaintiffs and that they should remain in cook county with regard many of them were not presented i should say the arguments in the briefs that was address today but many of the argument that were dressed in this research never presented at the trial court level and it can't be considered an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail to appreciate arguments that are never raised it's not the trial court's job to to help the party with the burden in a motion it's its movement job to provide the evidence to prove that the case  an incomplete record i think that frankly the only thing that's missing from the record is is the answer that was filed by the defendants you know there are issues raised about the psych necessity and about how in the future they more bring in a premises case that was never pled the motocross course is not a defendant there is no reason to believe i mean that again back to the original point the court can only consider the arguments that are brought up or when it renders the decision and it's not an abuse of discretion to properly found in favor of the pla point thank you your strongest points at this juncture would be appreciated i'll be brief these cases are decided under abuse of discretion standard but it's obvious when we are reviewing decisions of circuit courts where we have respected judges making decisions that we believe those judges to be reasonable it doesn't mean that we can't have someone to disagree the fact is is that the mayor idea as to why the circuit court here and now transferring this sort of cook now we believe that the location of the accident was in your locality we believe that there is no connection of cook county and the location the accident has been stated by the supreme court is one of the most important things the emergency personnel are from cook county the medical traders not cook county from your own county the medical treaters are from bureau county from peoria county the witnesses are from puro county in fulton county there is no connection whatsoever to polk county in this case bringing it across the state to bring the case is clearly something clear that the convenience of the defendants and the access to the evidence favors a location in bureau county we've already discussed the site inspection which favors bureau county and we believe it is necessary  these factors we look at the equities of the case and that's why these cases involve a look at an analysis of individual facts and it's cases and while the decisional law gives us definite guidelines to abide by to compare results to in a case like this you don't have prior cases that are exactly with these facts these products liabilities cases ammar man and other ones like it they always had something that connected to cook county here we don't have anything there's actually be any evidence that comes from le mans corporation is the distributor they get their product from gives gives rasing gives is located in whiteside county and they are import these products come from china so the fact the idea that we're going to informed none convenience cases we are we are bound by such cases as dowdy versus union pacific two of seven l and i second one sixty seven stating that the trial court abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court and we have a trial court that strongly suggests here that the trial court did not  you want to make a concluding statement certainly i don't so there again to get to the conclusions you state about where the locations are again what's the effect of it so take a look at the private interest it's clearly not met even expression with the first specter the convenience of the parties and as clear one party is equal distance so we can set that aside if you look at mr gibbs he is located fifty miles from the site of the accident and from