with witnesses are we believe slanderous testified it was a fog visibility wasn't the best and that there were no lights in markers for warning and that warning was an issue for him so contrary to the point in the indication as to whether or not you psyche like that i saw in that position and you saw it i didn't i didn't see that but aside from that if there had been warning flash i'll we maintained it that flanders more likely than not should have seen something they had but had their ban warnings such as plasters and had there not been a sudden stop those would have been two additional impetus to give him better warning so that even if you was being inattentive he would have still seen it and this is a tragic accident should come would have happened and when you're i would be good they'd get there by believing that there was only brake light seen for a short distance because he was just in the process stopping and that therefore he stopped suddenly that there wouldn't have been an accident but i also maintain that even even aside from the sudden stop that a truck driver shouldn't turn off your merge the flashers in the setting when thank you and good afternoon make these the court counsel scott ritter's of the defendants michael yankee in my one express your arse one thing i think all of us can agree on this is one of the more tragic and something anyone could imagine happening on the roadways of the state of illinois and all the some of the family members here today and i think all of us extend our sympathies to these two women who were taken from their families by  thirty nine south near tampa on the highway not on a stop and go traffic with traffic lights assassins when he had to stop because he saw a long line of cars in front of him and whether what the weather conditions were mi going on and everybody stop there's brake lights there's flashers some handle some don't but it's clear that these vehicles have stopped in the road for some reason and he's several hundred feet behind mr flanders and found out that there was a hay truck that was on fire in front of them and that traffic was going to be moving pretty quickly he wasn't broken down he wasn't stopping for an accident that he was involved in and he was stopped in traffic period at that point mr flanders for reasons i can't i was going at sixty or sixty five miles an hour it's the place vehicle from behind and i think it's important to actually examine what he said in his deposition he doesn't say he sees brak for whatever reason he his vision was a struct and when he came up on the vehicle he saw three he doesn't know if they just come on he doesn't know if they've been on for minutes or half an hour or an hour he has no idea all he knows is the first thing he sees them the record so the duty that i think the end of day ok so disgusted is is basically that when you're stopped in traffic you have no duty to the people behind you now you certainly have a duty to not stop suddenly but if there's no evidence of any kind that anyone stop suddenly the only duty is basically to sit there and not hit the car in front of the idea that somehow all of these vehicles may have s you know absolute royalist best i've seen no reason to take a side in this particular case so the only reason this accident happened was because mr flanders didn't yield to the vehicle in front of him and did not say anything about the other vehicles in line assuming your honour's wish to consider it clearly does not apply in this case and that's why there are no cases as the plaintiff pointed out in their brief that interprets it in this circumstance because nobody brings it up because it doesn't apply that statute plays only in situations other than necessary traffic stops traffic stops were defined rarely in any decision we were able to follow but what we the plaintiffs pointed this court to the one case that i think actually discusses this in some detail that's the mack ace the arkansas supreme court which states specifically that section three ninety two points twenty two does not apply to circumstances where the stop arises from the  and in that case the truck stops there's an accident on the bridge and he doesn't get out but us has flares and flashers because he wasn't broken down that's the purpose of this act so federal rules and regulations do not  flashers and within ten minutes the statute requires that you get out without flares and trying well is that we're going to do with every single truck the stops on the road the ramp of flares out of ten come to a stop for ten minutes i mean you know it's the chicago land area riders people stop because sometimes less that happens but the idea that that's if you roll regulation applies to this case is not supported by civil precedent of any or anywhere in the united states and was specifically determined not to apply in this about the fact that lights maybe use emergency flashers may be used with such lights but they are purely discretionary with the person who's driving the vehicle in order to pose a liability and a duty i think we would that anything in mr yankee did or didn't have anything to do with his acts and i think that just or to try to point this out specifically by looking at the record and trying to determine what it was or what mr again he did not do that in some way would have caused the prevented this accident happened and i think with the case law says is that it must be reasonably certain that some action taken by mr uni would have somehow prevented mr flamm from hitting the flashers on when you stop in traffic doesn't exist if it did and i think the argument would be certainly different than the one that's presented to the court so on that basis the judge dorothy one of the human case for the concept that the point in that case couldn't testify as to what caused the accident as they would assist in this case the plaintiff's disease cannot testify as to what happened but the only evidence that exists even if you believe that somehow and difference can be raised that there vehicle stops at a reasonable speed he made sure that the vehicle behind him didn't hit him it did not get him and had that warning there was no question yeah i know they didn't get that from the drawn because the only inference you can draw is that theoretically and i don't think you have the steps as this but assuming you take every possible that vantage you can give places and say well yeah maybe the line theoretically has some liability from this accident or at least to go to the jury and i question that's clearly not the state of the law honor's i think when we talk about this case in particular and we look at the horrific nature of the accident sometimes i think that we get so caught up in discussing the laws and statutes the presidents that i think i'm for to this or and they  should perhaps you lost that perspective and i can understand why the plaintiffs would do this as to what really happened here everyone in this courtroom who've heard these facts knows exactly what mr flanders for reasons i cannot explain was going sixty sixty five miles an hour and hit that jeep cherokee from behind and kill those to the hormone i don't know why you did that i don't know why he when he saw one of the other witnesses at the hospital and the guy saw did nothing other than stop his truck as the law requires complied with every statute that applies to the circumstances and at the time of the actually did his very best to try and save these two women's lives but somehow he bears some responsibility  illinois followed suit a very similar provision shortly thereafter and so what the provision says now is that if a school is not separately incorporated from a church i mentioned churches or an association of churches it's exams that's because the employees there are basically directly is of the church the schools are arms of the church so churches purposes clearly religious and so they would get the exemption automatic service agency for native americans and you look at those cases and they show that you know whether the primary purpose is religious or secular in the cemetery courts have found that their real id is the primary purpose which goes   is the only workable tast the language is whether it's operate primarily for religious purpose not whether subjectively the school things that was used the most important things to it or whether it's goals or aspirations are well that's quite pretty first run i think it's the cleaner way to dispose of the case i mean this is not even a school that's connected to a church it was a group of parents who happen to share the same religious beliefs lutheran belief that founded this cool and that operates the school is no clearly under their own evidence they refused that their control supervise or this was operated by the church and then the only  support is this one hundred fifty thousand donation back in two thousand so this is really about a failure group i mean they wanted the exemption they had to marshal the evidence and hummin but all weekend was one witness who testified for about five know it's just which ones primary that if the majority do this kind of secular topics you're not operated primarily for religious or it's so typical i suppose a catholic high school like the one that i went to we had one religion period per day and the other six be reasons why they don't do that you such as liability or whatever but again this school isn't even connected to a church so sometimes they are connected to a church and are said incorporated but this one so that's why how could they ever show  reading but he doesn't say how much is the word for that he says prayers offered throughout the day he doesn't say how often or for how many minutes he says it chapels are offered weekly for the younger students and by ricky for the older students but he doesn't say whether i think this is mandatory or how on which apples last for so you know we think that this is really you could even argue to minutes and under under their task of all they had to do records argument that really only sundays well what sunday school is there a separate stand alone into the all operating experience at least the church setting all or part of the religious organization are of the church if the test is ninety percent seventy percent sixty eight percent after the religious instruction that argument will completely eviscerate stand it has the legislature was not the reform churches in the area in the basement of the church members of the association have to be members of the christian reformed church has to be on the school board yes it's a separate board but they have to be members of the christian reform church  need to know algebra chemistry i'll think that may those are critical issues and when you look at the evidence here it's clearly operated for a primary purpose under that list of all of that and the current evidence to disprove it so every issue is in dispute they have to show that they meet the statutory language for the exemption so whether the director asked them to shelve it their principle is supported or one of those other three things they have to show because if they don't they don't meet exemption criteria so so and the director did know in his decision that the schools are running so that means independent which means that they're not change we talked about was that prior to the mid seventy's all schools were exempt and then after that point only certain religious schools were we've never said that the law has narrowed sense those cases which your first came out and the reason why we don't discuss those cases have nothing to do with the issue in front of this court because each of those cases involve a school that was not separately horrorcore and if you look it doesn't say the appellate decision itself or the ball in the case but the circuit court order is in the record and it talking about that their primary purpose is religion but the second doesn't say if your primary purpose is religion you get exemption it's if you can show that you operate primarily for religious purpose so that we have to look at the actual operations of the school and see what percentage of the budget is coming from one source so i think that's a bit of a stretch to claim that any plans were would qualify for that and again is jennifer not principally just like primary means majority to that public school over there right there's only one reason i'm not one of those school district whatever public school because of the you know there are about got it right and so for that reason and then reason alone setting up this school not talking about operation in that case they would have both a secular purpose and a religious purpose we can see that the religious purpose would be subordinate to the dominant purpose which is secular that's why the legislature used the word operate so look at how they actually conduct their days and if they're spending the majority of the day on the same course that kids take the public school that they need to do well in the past eighteen get into college and they're not being operated primarily for religious person that might be the motivation why they open the school but every procul school teaches the sa