what we discussed is i would present the main argument to about ten minutes you are austin bartlett for morgan stanley say that again austin bartlett's in representing the appellant morgan stanley agencies maybe can and so ok the other issue is you know there's an order on this file it says no briefs or nothing filed until the outcome of this case so after the outcome then you whether he was insulated from his alleged negligence simply because that negligence occurred in the instruction in training setting the trial court held that he was insulated under the educational  practice doctrine and granted summary judgment without analyzing the facts purely based upon the proposition that any training or instruction allegations constitute educational malpractise and are foreclosed ins law so the court's characterization of educational malpractise is erroneous secondly the educational malpractise doctrine if it were to be recognized in illinois should be confined to traditional educational institutions in purely economic harm case as opposed to death case like we have before us turn to the first point under illinois law if a person or entity undertakes the obligation to train a person in that how to operate a machine or a vehicle such as an airplane they have an obligation to carry out bed duty in a non that with that manner the case of versus sears roebuck is in firm in that regard and that case a plaintiff filed suit against sears and it simply because a series driver back to back out of the automotive center and hit the plaintiff causing her personal injury one of the allegations against sears was it negligently trying to construct a good play how to drive out of the auto center and the jury rendered a verdict against sears sears appealed and sears what's before the first district in two thousand and argued that the allegation of negligent training instruction shouldn't stand in this court affirmed the jury's verdict this court held that the judge that reza prayer prayed for the jury to decide the issue of negligent training and instruction that there was sufficient evidence the record to on three occasions within three weeks of this accident going over the aisle what's the difference between the school and the individual see any teacher at louis university in the business on th side what's the difference well i'm glad you raised that question presiding justice smith there's a fundamental difference the difference is an instant entity like louis university there's issues of academic freedom there's issues of an actual curriculum that a professor developed or that a school has approved and this case howard levinson this wasn't a classroom setting this was in flight training so there was no developed curriculum there was nothing with academic freedom and the big concerns that he says traditional educational malpractise cases get into i had been clear it's overseeing public or private universities and overseeing day to day teaching and the third being a glut of lawsuits in the courts saying that they didn't receive a quality education here it's fundamentally different not only because you have a person teaching when one person took regarding one aircraft the x or an aircraft regarding baek airport where this aircraft crashed on approach and was teaching him how to it in that aircraft in approach mechanisms within two to three weeks before the accident so what is different from the louis university case is that when the magnitude of harlem we're not talking about disappointed financial or economic expectations we're talking about physical harm and death and secondly that there won't be the onset of the judiciary over having to oversee traditional educational institutions or concerns about academic freedom and that the trial court here bradley held that the educational malpractise doctrine prohibits any allegations of negligent training or instruction to go forward i mentioned be the case involving serious that this court had affirmed but justice with the question you asked about that's the difference here it brings up a basketball player who got a scholarship to go to to creighton university graduated with a fourth grade reading level had trouble getting employment and later filed suit against creighton the seventh circuit had serious concerns about it and affirmed the dismissal from the district court and the reason they did it was when it was a traditional educational institution the court was concerned about judicial oversight of the curriculum that there would be clerks rather than schools determining the contents of curriculum and that there would be a tremendous exposure to to the school system generally you can trace that case which involved especially someone complained about a poor education that resulted in economic harm with a case like bill versus yale university of connecticut supreme court case that was a case where a medical in tellingly the connecticut supreme court upheld this case it is an educational malpractise it involves whether yale university was negligent and caused physical harm to another person and bringing it to the aviation context of the case that we believe is the template that this court should follow and is we believe that a proper assessment of the stands and the reason again that case is and that with that particular case what happened is a a a state of a deceased pilot filed suit against flight safety a actual flight school  and argued that the flight school should be held liable for not training the pilots regarding icing characteristics and aerodynamics stalls and flight safety much like mr levinson in the flight schools in this case that that's educational malpractise relates to negligent training in instruction and the rest of district of new york let dad new york case law which i like only has addressed educational practice and the federal district court held that this case is not appropriate to recognize the educational malpractise doctrine and really focused on two reasons one that it doesn't involve a traditional educational institution unlike  public or private university concerns about academic freedom for joining with a private corporation the trail of training adults specialize individuals regarding operation of one the aircraft and the court found that the concerns regarding teaching children at a head or to school system in teaching children are fundamentally different than teaching your man and sort of quick decline to recognize the educational malpractise doctor and really differentiated cases like ross which involve economic harm from cases where there is alleged bodily injury or or death like we have here and we urge the court to adopt that approach  it involves considerations of physical harm and particularly when it involves someone like mr robinson and his company how to quit ration that are actual schools it is error to apply involved a claim for not training pilots regarding emergency procedures with an exhaust system fails an aircraft in the next place when they upheld the application of the educational malpractise doctrine the court said courts schools as opposed to courts should decide the content of the curriculum and secondly that it was doing with the curriculum here we don't have an actual school we have an individual i would levinson is not grading someone it's not taking place it's taking place in an airplane in flight and the court's not having to weigh in on a curriculum it's fundamentally different and i think it's important to emphasize the far reaching implications of the trial court's decision here if any negligent training or instruction allegation is deemed to educational e potentially exposing the public to significant risk of physical harm and there is not a good policy reason to to go that route we ask that this court reversed the trial court indicated everything else has been stayed until the end result but i do want to point out as to appellant turk i understand it is a friday that we may have settled many of the other issues in the case other than is you know it's an interlocutory appeal we is in news i can tell going to affect only the garland case which we have already gotten summary judgment on july seventh of this past year on the basis of exclusive remedy provision of the worker's compensation act so unless that this is in which is currently pending hundred eleven days twenty one twenty one and eleven dash twenty one ninety nine is somehow reversed in the summary judgment that nonetheless to get us back on track i think what was ignored pointed out but mr bartlett too in the trial court was what is in the record here and we really haven't focused on that this is not his much as people have tried to make it out and certainly not as to our appeal a case about educational malpractise we brought a contribution claim based upon common law negligence principles why is that because if we look at the record we see that how i levinson was the owner of our corporation which was the coal owner of this aircraft involved in the crash this was a specific type of aircraft your honour's and this was as mr levinson stated in the record at sea for four five on the subject cessna has geared engines that means the dead in layman's terms the propeller is operating at about a third of the speed of the engine as a result deposition to get on the record you can't make quick movements of the throttle on this plane you have to know how to handle the engine because it's an important part of flying the airplane probably the only difference between the airplane and mr turrets bearing which we should he was familiar is how you handle the engine that's in the record mr levinson volunteered as a flight instructor he didn't receive payment here he was  owner in essence of the aircraft through his ownership of however with particular peculiar now which of powell this plane was different then other planes in particular the plane that mr trick was familiar with what we would have not mentioned in a written briefs and i want to make sure that the court is aware since we have an overview here there are other aspects of the record that create disputed issues material fact that show why this is kind of the negligence and again mr levinson stated that c four five five and five six have to be careful not to chap with rather quickly it's a safety issue you could have catastrophic problems if you when he had this training he did mr levin said this is a see eight four three i don't recollect any conversation about that so despite the fact that there was no knowledge of a safety hazard peculiar now even apart from flight instructor certified flight instructor issues or federal regulations or anything else from comment on negligence principles the fact that you had someone who volunteered to train with now was he knew of a potential safety hazard and never even mentioned it to the person he was training grace the disputed issue a fact that should have gone to the jury we should never even reach the issue of educational malpractise and that's why this is not going to cause inconsistent issues with this c appeal with flight schools and everything else this is a different set of facts on the record and bet is what we're here about we have the trial court just take it essence approach i'll just issue judgement on the pleadings i'm going to be the t s a one size judgment and ignore the facts in the record those were acts i pointed out to the court and i would hope we take those into consideration as to why it was disputed issues affect on ordinary negligence principles here and that's  worker's compensation sought remedy issue it is not resolve in our favor then we would ask that this be reversed otherwise this will be moot and that's all i have briefly for us we have an interest in the outcome of this case regardless of how the other case settles in fact if if my my co apple ends here get hit with they want this case becomes all the more important cost because it becomes the that it should make of the educational malpractise doctrine i have only a few things to add some of those things that i plan to add i'm not going to add because mr bartlett discovered them admirably but your honor i'm asked gives instruction to the somebody outside of out of that context wouldn't this educational doctrine apply and he's a teacher and if it doesn't why doesn't it and i say whether it does or whether doesn't depends very much on the character of the instruction given the policies that have discussed that have that have been applied to this issue have largely concerned institutions  and therefore they have considered instruction given in a certain way in the institutional way that is to say general instruction given generally that is the reason i submit that establish causation why why should it be impossible to establish causation i agree that it is but if we look at why it is i think we learned something significant with respect to the issue of this case when we talk about causation we talk about proximate causation we usually talk about a couple of things one of them is that it's a direct and foreseeable consequence not something unusual so within the context of a medical school for example very bad training is given really bad training objectively bad trainees give this to surgery then it's for foreseeable is it not that the people perceive their training later in life aren't going to do good surgeries that's the natural foreseeable consequence but stuff happens in between  in terms that residents have to pass their boards the problem with the situation the reason that they have a court say that you can't establish causation is really because of the different doctrine that plays into it and apply in this case where an individual is giving training on the use of a particular item either it's a school bus or an airplane or a neighbor showing another aber how to operate a sa the educational malpractise doctor but of course course to say he can't possibly establish court causation does not exist in this context but how do i distinguish him from the other instructors how do we get there if we've got three other instructors oh that his was the cause doesn't have to be because you know he's to be a cause that's number one number two that's a question for the jury in this instance as as as as mr mckissock pointed out the record shows in this case remarkably that levinson was was personally aware of the very deficiencies in mr tourists  airplanes like a race car driving fast and then hit the brakes and then and then here at the airport all of a sudden he's coming in at eighty four miles an hour when he's got to come in i'm sorry knots where he has to come in excess of one hundred you know that there is there it is i don't know that a better opportunity will arise at this educational malpractise docket which would be real clear has called the educational institution malpractise doctrine does not apply to an individual to a person who during training to another instruction to another with respect to something a machine of any kind with the intent that they're going to give it to him to use that's simply not remotely an end and all of the policies educational malpractise that one of the considerations was the the fact that there was a sort of vetting process for the people that were hired to do the teaching or instructing their peers there was a resume process there you know there was a selection process you could get fired and that that was one of the things that the courts didn't want to get involved in what's how would educational institutions set up their hiring practices and they're there monitoring practices and they're reviewing practices and they're evaluating practices of their instructors and they're really capable of doing it whereas for these four certainly in a case we have one person who's holding himself out to be an instructor of another person it's this is not anything like not only is because you're not institution it's not even an institutional educational kind of purpose it's the hands on let me show you so so that i can give it to you or you could buy it so that that would be be make clear that it doesn't apply to a situation such as we have this i think your honor very much thank you education he has to demonstrate periodic lee according to f a a regulations that he is qualified and and qualified to be certified by the f a a as a certified flight instructor evaluating but the insurance requirement was a c f i sit in the airplane and evaluate but the point i want to make which is the point we made as strongly as we could in the briefs is that there is no difference between mr levinson and a flight school like r t c or aero because those flight schools are act based with the instruction in the flight schools are actually given by c f i certified flight instructors what is taught at a flight school must be taught by an individual c f i whenever an individual c f i gives instruction to a student pilot in an aircraft and those instructions  regularly by the f a a it's all in the f a a ours as to how they should proceed what they should teach how they should teach it and mr turkey in this case owned a multi engine aircraft he owned an aircraft with two engines and the f a a does not did not treat the aircraft that he owned with the four twenty one aircraft in this case the air the the f a a did does not make any distinction so mr turton not only received the evaluation from my client mr levinson in those five hours for insurance coverage purposes but he also received two different sessions from two different schools and they passed him they said he successfully completed specific instruction on the four twenty one b but the instruction has the same it's regulated by the f a a well you know the the courts that have looked at flight instruction cases as well as other types of educational malpractise cases have concluded that is a matter of public policy and there are four basic reasons the ross court some circuit court of appeals articulated those fo reasons which is in all the other jurisdictions cases that there are really good sound and wise hobbling policy reasons why the courts should not involve themselves in double questioning the standard of of or the quality of particular education how can you distinguish between general education or general training and specific training do the courts want to get involved in aviation which is highly regulated by the f a a is such second guessing the regulations the step by step procedures required by the f a a and these instructors it you know there are licensing tests there are continuing education requirements there are tests to be taken by the pilots there are certain instruction procedures that need to be passed with a certified flight structure now there are flight simulators which are better than no distinction that's what i'm saying judge yes there is no distinction it's important to look at the claims here in you know to say that these are common law on that which is claims i mean you can dress it up any way you want to but the  the claim the nature of the claim is important it's the same type of claim that the courts whether jurisdictions have termed or viewed as educational not practice which is simple is a teacher a teacher legally responsible for the injuries suffered by a third person caused by the negligence of the pupil after the pupil has left the control of supervision of the teacher that's really the question that's really the claim and if we when you take a look at the morgan stanley brief to see all the allegations set forth and all the different kinds of claims in the class and in the complaints or it's all failure or two to provide adequate training very general allegations about teaching and training it and it and they're saying what they want to say is that my client mr levinson is legally responsible for mark turret coming in on that final approach and taking that airplane a multi engine airplane that he's flown he's got twelve hundred hours in a multi engine airplane he's landed hundreds of times in airports he's landed at night he's landed day he was one of the few nine eleven civilian pilots to rescue in new york city he is an experienced pilot but on this occasion what did he do he turned that airplane a little bit too steeply and the aircraft loss left and it spun to the ground now why is it almost impossible to determine proximate cause and why isn't it worthy of trial because we can't get into the head of mark turret we don't know what went through his head in those few seconds when he made his final approach because a million things could have happened one hundred things could have been going on in his head that had nothing to do with the and more recently in a training that he received defended them when the issue becomes a matter of law it's a public policy case it's a public policy case it's not a duty case b b because those factors are applied when there is no public policy against the particular kind of claim and the trial judge made it very clear he said i'm distinguishing all those training cases in the employer employee context and why because the employer has a duty to the public it serves if it's going to provide a service or a product in the public that better well give it's a ploy is adequate training because that's its business it's its in its capacity as an employer serving the public it has a duty to do that it has a duty to take care of the public with the public buys a service or buys this product here we have a teacher the question is whether that the teacher should be liable to a third person as a result of pupil's negligence who was outside the teacher's supervision and control and as a matter of public policy for the for reasons the like of a set a secular state or to care evaluate the educator the inherent uncertainty about causation the potential for a flood of litigation against teachers the possibility of the claims of embroil the courts of the overseeing the day to day operation of particular kinds of education or schools or teachers that there is no difference with a teacher and a school because the school is full of teachers teaching pupils there is no difference and so it's it's really that dewey case the burger king case doesn't even it's not even an issue it's not only a that's right it's not the public policy is really been set by the only supreme court in the loose case the loose case the most frequent said the courts should not get involved in and second guessing the quality of education the philosophy of education we've got state has licensing procedures for all kinds of professions for all kinds of occupations people have to take licensing exams what does that cut off the  instruction the specific instruction because somebody passes a license that is him i mean this opens up a pandora's box which is really not good public policy which is why the courts other states who have considered this about here to these four factors and have said for this particular kind of claim not me ploy or contexts not an ownership context but only in this context the teacher is liable or should be liable for the injuries suffered by a third person by the negatives of the student when the pupil or the student is away from the teacher and every one of these cases like the sears case that's an employer case you've got is a premises liability case the capacity of the defendant is what it's issue and the deputy arises from the capacity of the defendant the duty of rices of the capacity of the defendant and that's easy to deal with that's easy when you take those four duty factors and burger king and apply it to that situation is the car going backwards or quite forwards are you on the premises or eyes on the premises do they know that patrons are going to be standing behind this vehicle or not did you teach when the peoples flying the airplane with other people and can't correct the p i think there are very strong reasons why illinois should follow other states and not recognize that this type of claim is arising from his ownership of the airplane in particular the negligent entrustment count which state the case the trial judge when he made this ruling did not affect that that that that that clearly is a matter the later on august alive and i believe ragas ten i was eleven of last year on motions for summary judgment the trial judge did dismiss those claims after examining the facts and held that after a thorough examination of all the facts and all the documents and all the records trial judge said there's no basis for that claim and he granted summary judgment to mr levinson on the negligent entrustment claim which arises from the ownership but this claim i e not teaching mark troy something whatever it is that caused the crash does not arise from ownership does not arise from ownership all the ownership related claims stayed in the case were tested on a motion for summary judgment and they lost because the trial court found that there were no facts that could sustain that claim with respect to volunteer and betty she really wasn't covered below there's a twenty eleven illinois supreme court case called bell versus hot so i have it examines of the restatement on duties arising  voluntary undertaking and the only supreme court that basically takes a very narrow and conservative view on voluntary undertaking in that case in the fall whether or not parents should providing or giving a private party and providing alcohol of the private party should be liable to a third person after a movie to the young man who tranquil but too much and ended up in a federal car accident and and it's really an educational malpractise claim it's the nature of a claim that was addressed by the trial court and the trial court held the illinois has not recognized there is no difference between r t c enter every state that is considered the issue of whether or not bar educational malpractise cases has decided that such cases are barred based on the public policy reasons there's been another dozen cases since the creighton university case in the seventh circuit but more importantly for purposes of this appeal of the cross appeal is that there's no precedent suggesting that any sort of different educational institutions or teachers educators or instructors should be treated differently there's no cases that having that some educators are entitled so the protections that bar and some educators are not r t c you know don't make that claim  malpractise claims in most cases rather what these cases teach us is that you don't look to the nature of the defendant you look at the nature of the claim sort of a gun to the front and if the claim challenges the effectiveness of teaching if  raises questions about the reasonableness of an educator's conduct and teaching if the claim requires an analysis of the quality of education that claim is a claim for educational practice and should be barred based on the policy reasons that mr learned went into the like to begin with it is our educational malpractise discussion but from the perspective of a flight school education not practiced doctrine is not a doctrine of the munity but a principle that's totally totally seated in common law and common sense it's why twenty seven states have already said that educational practice is not a cognizable torque you simply can't play your teacher or school or what you fail to do after you graduate and leave the school and commonly have to have a duty and a duty cannot be an impossible tut and in teaching a teacher cannot ever be sure if a student really understands what it what it's been taught because no one can read another person's mind it's not like checking to see if a file has been downloaded into your brain education teaching is not the same as downloading a file but a teacher cannot have a duty to teach everything that a student may encounter because even a teacher does not know every possible combination that student could encounter for example if a driving school should they teach to stop at a stop sign should they teach to stop at a stop sign at the bottom of a hill should they teach to stop at a stop sign at the bottom of the hill at night at the bottom of the hill in the rain the list goes on and on with recurrent training center and especially in aviation that there's an infinite number of possibilities that could be conjured up for instance if we're trying to train a pilot for engine failure should that be engine failure thirty thousand feet should be learned how to handle an airplane it with an engine failure at twenty thousand feet or at night or in icing conditions or in a steep drop a heavy cross wind the combination of possibilities is endless it's simply impossible to anticipate every possible combination and in the case of recurrent training center and other flight schools that would involve teaching that are beyond the practical test standards pectoral tests the p t s as a guide that the f a a purpose publishers to ensure that pilots are trained to a proper standard but of course there's those who wanted to see the teacher and always play the role of a monday morning quarterback and say if the teacher only taught this if they don't we taught that combination we would have had an accident but and further what about the prerequisite knowledge just enroll comprehension level so does the school have a duty to teach what's what we're always supposed to know there's a teacher have a duty to ensure that students remember what they're taught and as a teacher have a duty to teach everything because a school had a duty to supervise  also said the union had no control over the work site to some are factors here and this is this is just one of the issues for not recognizing educational practices a tort because a teacher or school has no control over the activity or actions of their former students after they graduate leave the school the purpose of teaching and education is provide the students with the knowledge and fundamentals so that x students once a student leaves the facility and brought a new world and make their own decisions and make sound decisions and use good judgment and whatever activity or trade they're engaged in so in the end the common law says you can't hold a teacher or a school responsible for what they have no control over once the accidents go out of their own but entire policies that are used to train and evaluate its members it's a geisha related persons the policies included visors circulars training directives the practical test standards i mentioned earlier and including is a constant recurrent evaluation of its certified plane structures and their flight schools so then we ask why should it be impossible to establish causation because pilots interestingly enough have been trained to evaluate not only the air worthiness of their airplanes but there are witness of themselves a pilot s s himself who i have any distractions that are going to prevent me from flying safely such as trouble at home with my spouse is my mind on something pressing at work do what i feel like i have the flu and i've recently taken any other medication that might impair my ability to fly safely that i recently consumed alcohol there's several distractions that are not aviation related that a pilot must safely evaluate before he gets into an airplane those those factors are simply can't be anticipated by an instructor prior to leaving a school finally the traditional schools teach many things that could involve physical harm you know high schools have a driving school and there's rules that teach swimming there's woodshop to teach how to use a dangerous equipment and in illinois we have two universities that teach on it in on monday and then the court was called by my co counsel who made the settlement with us here's how it impacts this is this appeal arose from three cases the garwin case the walk case in the canoe  case all three of those cases were persons who were killed in the plane crash and garland is the only point of here the other two cases came up on appeal on the counterclaims and garlands case is truthfully still here as a point but those other two cases were the ones that were settled the walk case and it could use in case and that settlement was trading the dropping of many appeals in return for the trading of other people here because some of your claims that you have here going to go away and the two of them are the claims brought in contribution by morgan stanley interac who argued here in wa and in can it's so that everything that will still be before this court will only be pursuant to the garland case going case will still be here need to be ruled on garland obviously as a point of who's making educational malpractise claims and across claims that are based on educational malpractise those cross claims however i want to mention this actually our contingent cross claims because the parties that are making those cross claims in july of last year one burger by the workers comp bar which was mentioned to you you know of was a fellow employee of garland and we're morgan stanley was the employer of garland and they were dismissed in july and they were dismissed from the case had this not been ruled on and gotten three or four a language already we would have this appeal in those cases because they're already out there here arguing because it's possible that that appeal brought by gharlane could be reversed and that's why they're here if it's not reversed they'll be no cross pla and that's the state setting that we're at nestl one where the court and that's the settlement in the impact of ok let's return to some of the things that have been discussed specifically i'd like to talk about just the facts of the case a little bit and whether they matter they don't matter a lot of arguments  taken place about the facts you know this case is was ruled out as a matter of law it was a blanket protection given it wasn't specific to the facts and could the judge had to fax given to him to him but he didn't basis ruling on the facts a lot of people argue the facts to this court but you know we do take the facts all well played facts is true for this motion and for this ruling is that what they say is presumed to be true what they're saying is that it was negligent teaching or negligent instruction in this the nature of the claim that we're looking at now we reboarded their facts in our briefs and i'll do a little bit everybody here but it's not really relevant the facts and your reason i'm rebuilding is to try to tell the court it's not all one sided under the facts and here the facts that that i would like to rebut that have come up today they're not important because this is a matter of law but why they need to be rebutted the word specific training is specific training in it because it's specific training therefore i should be entitled to educational bill or just protection on airplanes in aviation everything is specific training and that's what occurred here there are three entities before you who are training facilities one of them is glass glasses a simulator facility that gate instrument training training specific instrument flying they actually reach the point where they certified mr torek again which has to be done every six months again and again they certified him in the fall before the crash that he was sufficiently trained in properly trained competent to be an instrument pilot and that was done by a certified like instructor or errol and that's why they're being is specific to this point a cessna or twenty one b course they had approval from the f a a to teach a specific course on a specific plane and a particular model of that airplane and have to completion of it they give a certificate and that certificate was issued to the insurance company that that training had been completed the reason insurance company made matters is because you've got to be insured if you get a flight a point it's good common practice but it's also important because not required by the f a a this is extra training that's important point because mr torek is already totally legal under f a a rules to fly the plane but he did additional training both a class and well that training at r t c completed was completed with a certificate about nine days before the crash in the week before the crash mr howard let him see him who is my client in the subject of this appeal arguing that it should be no different treatment to him flew with him additionally he flew with them additionally and the three entities together make a picture and that picture is the type of training received by this individual and one certified him to be an instrument pilot in this was an instrument flight the second certified him as being competent to operate and know the peculiarities of a cessna for twenty one b that's r t c and then comes howard le son who actually not in a simulator but in the airplane flies with him for the required amount of amount of hours will all three of those things were required by the insurance policy so it's a quilted pattern of training required not by the f a a but by an insurance policy when people here argue that the strain was personal to the sale of an airplane that's simply not supported in the record there wasn't a sale of the airplane and the plane the training already took place in fact it's very clear in the record that was unknown whether it was going to be a sale of the plane it was to be determined it's one of the reasons that people were aboard the plane it wasn't no mother's going to be a sale the training was pursuant to the insurance to allow him to fly the plane turton years earlier and said many separate occasions because they were personal friends he gave that is structured to mr target and mr ricks own airplane not necessarily for for twenty one at all he also gave instruction to mr courage in another for twenty one a couple years before he does not just give specific training he is his friend and he is a flight instructor so he flies with him but on this occasion he's the third in a series of three entities that had effect on his pilot before the fatal crash it would be unfair for mr levinson to be called to task for his training without him being able to call in and put before the jury the other two entities that he relied upon if you're the third one that's going to give the man training or going to observe him you're relying on the fact that if you know he went to these other two entities you know he graduated from those entities you know there was a certificate from those intense way is the question really right and i thought was very good question and i like how mr we're a mystery which is there's no real difference i think your question was about is there any real difference between a tutor a person sets up their own business versus louis universities at the one you're referring to yeah i don't think there's any difference to the tutor is enhanced saying what was done by the institution would be unfair to judge the tutor not let the tutor talk about these situations or not bring in the institution building is really important flipped and the reason he air is because the training given to him so it's an assumption it's an illogical assumption here on this appeal that if he's followed to have been flying then that his fault is the fault of his teacher because the fault of his teacher to him is irrelevant to someone else's life so there's the that's the assumption is that he's flying in fact one of the claimants here is that it is mr  here wanting to make a claim he's the negligent party he has to presume he's a negligent party to be making this point so you can teach me you didn't teach me well well this is exactly why education won't practice needs to be given also to howard levinson because whether it's r t c whether it's glass you have to climb into the head of mr turrets and know what he did or why he did what he did first of all we have enough trouble knowing what to do because a plane is destroyed that's why there's not really a true knowledge of who was funny plane was destroyed nobody was there no one who lived it was in the airplane there's factual circumstances that indicate this that is factual circumstances that indicate that but assuming he was flying why did he make this mistake what mistake while assuming it was simply banking to steeply which is one of the allegations very likely true allegation why did he do that did he do that because he was distracted do you do that because he had an argument do you do it because he was tired why did he too had bad day when twelve hundred hours in prior flying for nine years he didn't do that airplane was based at that airport the airport he crashed coming to so he made that kind of approach to that airport many many times that's it's just simple logic you airplane has to land nervously the time he comes home he's done this many many times how to turn an airplane when you're making a landing is like the first grade learning to fly twin engine is like the fourth grade learning to fly a bigger twin engine in this room conditions is like the eighth grade you know how  is like freshman year in high school he's giving them the polish air it really is well how can you judge what the freshman year course is about how we did without coming in talking about the first grade the fourth grade the eighth grade an important point needs to be made here you know he cannot go to r t c and take their course unless he's already an instrument rated pilot for twin engine aircraft it's presumed as an entry requirements where this air here may is basic flying so i'm arguing the facts but i'm saying that it's not fair to start judging his training unless you're going to bring in all the trainers and you're going to see all the training because truthfully you're going to hear the jury would have to hear about basic training that the why did he make this mistake and i also want to mention in the briefs a lot of times these facts are you by it's a logical assumption it's a logical assumption that since they went over landings when they flew the week before and this was a landing accident that some of that training may have impacted and caused the accident you know what that's all the evidence would ever be here because there's nothing else and how would you ever know why he made that mistake and i think that's the key to why there's an educational practice doctrine every time you're judging why somebody did something later to say it's because of that he changed how do you know and i think saying in public policy number three the difficulty of proximate cause how will a jury really know the reason the person did it that day or are they going to do the same thing are they going to really say instructor's fault no one else and is it maybe all the others maybe all of them should have emphasized that more of the turning inward when you're landing in that's the type of cases that would be allowed and that identifies why not only should you allow it but you shouldn't distinguish between because it's the same for a white structure the friday before is for the institution that same the same thing nine days before or for the institution and did it three months before how do you know which one of those influence him or why he didn't follow what he was taught or whether it was because of why he was fired you'll never really know and i think that's the doctorate if we go to the core begin caisson in minnesota i think it's of such a great case that we rely on it heavily you're not bound by it i just would direct you to the logic of it it discusses all of the issues that we've had here today it really discusses why digitization of practice is appropriate and the same arguments were made there and rejected that it did me it made here in good logic as to why and they were the argument was that education of practice there should be allowed because it's connected to the sale of an airplane and they rejected that and he said you gotta look at the claim the claim here is for bad teaching yes you might have an action for the sale of the airplane that's something different here there was an action for the sale of the airplane that's something different that's not here before you that was elsewhere yes it's true it was lost by them but they took an appeal on it has been state that's going to come up is the negligent entrustment one of the course i want to really mention really clearly on the hunt that was given to you is that this is different because it's up to him to use it's about giving meaning toric to use that's negligent trust me giving a person a point to use is negligent entrustment that's not teaching him that's letting him take it if he's fully trained by anybody whoever did the trade determining whether he's fully trait that's in another count was made in his a claim elsewhere now it was rejected but that's not for you other than a venture that appeal will come here but let's not put before you before you is specifically the trainee not negligent entrustment so the whole factual argument about this has something to do with the guy going to use the plane doesn't make any difference but also factual argument about his specific training doesn't make any difference what is makes the difference is the need for the court in the juries to get into the head of the person and know why one final example we sometimes one stop signs accidentally you know what we do it and that you know when we do it we can why we did it i've done it i hate to say it i've done it accidentally or i'd done it and you know what is it because i wasn't trying to or is because that day there was something specific about me and i did something that's really basic i ran a trainers fault also that's what we're considering here is that the trainers fall also and that's what it's about all slow and isn't a trainer fault and how would you determine it's a trainer spot you have to go back and look at that training and you have to look at what the ross court said specifically have to look at what he was like during the training his receptiveness his attentiveness his ability to absorb it that's his mind at the time of the training and you've got to get into his mind at the time you're in a stop say how would anyone ever know and that's why i think the protection is here and that's why i think it's deserved and that i would submit is why there should be no difference between he thank you thank you for the counsel your name again for the record taught him the approaches and landings at the end at the airport where the spare aircraft crashed outside of those better training was provided by mr levinson proximity in time this training was done two to three weeks prefer the access again with physically manipulating the controls of the actual aircraft particular knowledge howard robinson mentioned in his deposition it's a brief page four forty six of the  aircraft he had particularize knowledge regarding the handling characteristics of that aircraft that makes him different from other instructors generally the case with all the second part of your bring up because they were upset with the quality of a public school education and brought a suit under the education article of the only constitution it dealt with standing under the only constitutional dealt with whether they could have a claim for the quality of public education when think of the rascasse we talk about at length again there's a difference between cases involving the quality of public education generally universities schools generally and concerns about economic in and and such versus cases like this one where there is training provided three weeks beforehand on a aircraft and a graduate economic car but we're dealing with a death case result in the magnitude of the risk is significant it's can be death another case but i think the court should take a look at people with what they argued that negligent training instruction isn't allowed in illinois it  a hospital as well as a doctor relating to a heart transplant and there is a direct institutional negligence training case against the hospital for not training the doctor properly for regarding care of the  replacement organ and the this court affirmed in two thousand and eight the jury's finding against that hospital for failing to train and instruct that doctor i heard a lot of arguments today about how specialized and particularized the training is in the aviation context every day cook county juries weigh in in medical malpractise cases which has some of the same complexities and so in particular as train and this court has weighed in and has allowed those flames to go forward just because this case is in the aviation context and there's allegations of negligent training instruction similarly it should not be taken away from the jury here is illinois going to insulate and shield negligent conduct simply because it occurs in the training setting even if that results in physical