ventures but there's no agency liability how would the joint venture be problem the defendant w d logistics was operating as a broker while the defendant western gear transport was five again just to come back to the issue of whether or not there was material facts joint venture western dual transport had significant involvement reason is that those cases deal with a single row in his bill of lading in one case there was not even the carrier list that there is just a description of what would constitute a carrier and that would be in the shining case context of the carrier for the shipments the trial court allowed us to request ninety days of these bills of lading prior to the date of the accident and within those ninety day period we were provided with thirty four different bills of lad the agency and granted that each one of them can be addressed and may in in in their individuality may not be considered sufficient to establish control but the court has to look at them  to tell as there any evidence that w d controlled the manner of delivery  requirements imposed by the dealer just that some western dairy on bentley created a specific exact time for delivery and pickup as opposed to a window which i think would impose more restriction on the goods have to be delivered as opposed to other cases like you and shine and where there was a window of several hours when the delivery could be achieved but i think i would like to point the court's attention to a somebody could try to not point might be required to exclusively work for an employer correct but the facts of the situation or that this was the because of the number of hours worked their worst no to then take away those loads the mckale versus w d m trucking court found that that is an element of control that is relevant for determining agency and in hoffman v crane it actually  fine agency the other thing that i want to point out to the court that speaks to the level of control in the situation is the defendants argue that these were specific trips that were negotiated and agreed to b bentley which is tantamount to an independent contractor in this situation though after bentley delivered milk to minnesota the defendants had the ability to tell him to take this empty trailer after the trip had ended and drive it all the way to indiana and pursuant to their contract provision if he would have declined they did have the option they may have not done so but they did have the option to impose cost of him refusing to do that on bentley so bentley took this empty trailer and drove it from minnesota he didn't make it to indiana because obviously you got into the accidents and chicago but he t truck and drove it without any promise of compensation without any specific agreement as to be paid he took that truck and drove it towards indiana when this accident happened i think is him he acknowledge his presentation and i think beginning kind of with at the at the end there is a statement that the bentley trucking was somehow obligated to transport this trailer or the this empty tank truck from wisconsin to indiana that's what he was that's not the case of mr bentley testify that he did that voluntarily chose to do it wasn't obligated to do it and that if he didn't transport the that would impose a fine on him as the reason that in this world case in that case which is quite different than this one there's a to labrat system of fines that i've been able to broker to establish control over the way that the driver performs the work so this case i think we would say is quite different than spurlock you know among other things in that case  broker imposed a strict schedule for the driver of the broker required the driver to monitor the temperature of the load during the transportation and if the driver didn't follow those instructions the kid the broke r had the opportunity to find the driver those things just aren't present in this case you know and in terms of it's important to note that i think both parties cited this proposition in the that whether there is an agency or the scope of the agency really is confined to the trip here the trip from wisconsin to mean the end of a lot of talk about sort of the course of conduct between the parties but this  isn't sort of a you know wage in our case we're talking about whether somebody is in it for which is of state employment law it's whether whether bentley trucking was an agent or employee of western dairy western dairy transporter w so in connection with this trip there is no designation of bentley trucking is anyone's agent but even if there had been under illinois law principle can only be liable for negligence of an apparent agent if the plaintiff had known about the designation of the negligent party as an agent and did something to rely on that to his detriment so really that that the period agency theory doesn't really fit here at all  pparent agency is good contractual arrangements right there are business torts that sort of thing right so they're illinois cases that apply in the context of hospitals doctors working for hospitals any actual control over the way that eventually trucking went about doing its job surely on on this trip in particular the there's no evidence that they had any control over the route that the driver took the way that the driver did work  work under a public franchise that party is liable for the negligence of the contractors that it selects or engages with to perform that unreasonably dangerous work and so it applies to motor carriers and they're independent contractors but it doesn't apply to property brokers because property brokers aren't performing the work of motor truck transportation over public highways under a under a under the public franchise so it really doesn't apply here at all  with respect to the joint venture in the courts questions i think get at the issue here which is whether it's relevant at all now that the brief the  brief doesn't reference any of the elements of a joint venture it doesn't specifically identify facts might be questions of fact under any of those elements but you know in the absence of any evidence of control any evidence that w