as much as as hard as possible after they play this game my client are gonna have to walk out of the bathroom he collapsed and subsequently die now what we w we filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging willful and wanton conduct and find what occurred as they made several arguments to the trial court the trial  supreme court has held typically that there is a typical duty analysis that will require what factors to be considered the reasonable for c ability of the entry the likelihood of injury the magnitude of the burden on the defendant and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant now here in this case we have the statutory provision that place that does govern the duties of the school district or more specifically its certificated employees that big section twenty four twenty four of the school shall maintain discipline in the schools including school grounds for her own were released by the board and used for school purposes in activities there is a statutory duty that the school the school district failed to supervise and discipline its students fail to educate the students yes to the dangers of the game body shot and also  getting him to stop what the school district has are what their main argument was in the trial court is well we've got this public do he and the public radio says well governments cannot be liable for nebu jilly providing governmental services they say that this  court said that local governments are liable in this are the same basis as i did what features meaning that you don't do oh let's look to a public duty first and then maybe go to be traditional dewey analysis you've got to do the traditional judy analysis what happened in here is versus thompson is you ha case that is your specific statement they asked the public to rule doesn't last and now justice fre all so sad and he's been very consistent throughout saying there at the public duty rule a common law judicially created doctrine from is what the legislature gives you a hearing for so therefore they're saying just justice justice freedom justice comair and justice peace all say that the coordinating the act does not line this cord into three persons white said that it was not with the ball to protect the school district in the case in which they failed to give adequate information to op in another school district it was going to hire a teacher and it was sexual misconduct with the students the supreme court not you cannot in the light of paris persist thompson because in harris versus thompson you hear that a majority of the court saying look to traditional duty analysis and that is directly a case that public duty will what if applied we had any am an emergency service vehicle that caused an accident deliberate intention to cause harm or which is if not intentional shows an utter deep indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others they're just under one dash companion toward immunity well it's dealing with supervision of their committees on public property our complaint specifically is dealing with providing all supervision discipline they try to paint it is not so we're doing police protection services and they point to the teams case and the larsen case which deals with provide providing all metal detectors that's not what we have here what we have here is the supervision camps and that is just like what the supreme court dealt with in dover to and they say they can't they're trying to paint our pleadings in a manner that is best for them but it is not how reasonable reading of those pleadings our we're not saying that they shouldn't have guards posted in the school somewhere to provide quote police protection type activities we want merely to supervise and with our reference to the official discretion as to the propriety yeah actually names on its face say there were policies in place to prevent by date all that was complaint i think that's the framework that we look at in this case to see whether or not that the trial court should be upheld when we do that i think what we find is this court could adopt any of those arguments as the dispositive ruling in this case and i'll significant case because we've got a deceased minor and significant issue that might affect other schools that the court should go ahead and consider that but i would point the court to this the zimmerman case i'm not going outside the authorities in the record here have raise the question on appeal was whether or not the trouble relationship except in apply it had not been raised below it was race at the opposed supreme court level it was fully briefed by the parties in the courts that now we're not going it we're not going to go there and we're not going to and what harris says what the one thing that harris does not say is the public duty rule is is abolished is over rule is vacated is no longer a good law not is here a discrepancy among the members of the court right now certainly there is but the bar remains that that doctrine is is in in force when counsel points out the green case and says well green want to head and dealt with that doctrine despite the fact that despite the fact of the harris case in the three cases in green the court said i fear those arguments on duty but i'm not going to spoil i'm not going to address those because we've got a nice issue on immunity that we can dispose of it's clane it was brief and we're going to address that and they did say exact same as saying one thing to this court here that multiple independent grounds in front now i would also point out when we look at those three case first of all when we look at what this court did this court did not say that the public duty rule does not apply in the context of a school but it says it's not relevant to the analysis here whether the conduct that was alleged in that case had nothing to do with the provision of police powers or anything of that nature what it had to do with in there was simply voluntarily preparing a document that was wrong currently or to the allegations  so they're contending that there was a false haitian or misinformation in that letter and that's not what we have in this case in other words that the court when it looked at that found a voluntary undertaking by the school on within temple disregard for public welfare because it knew that the occurrence was recently forseeable to occur later so when we look at what the supreme court did in that case the supreme court again indo three did not look at that if you would say the public to the rolls not out or more what it says it doesn't apply here and that is are there are exceptions to that doctrine that apply and we've outlined those in our brief with respect to what are the exceptions that the courts have recognized and i think that's when we look at this we look at this case in light of if you look at this case in light of the allegations we see that the there is no special relationship left right and when you look at dames and you look at lawson they apply the special relationship house they did it different times in th case and i don't think that's important for our discussion today i think what's important is the fact that they applied the special relationship to but the situation where we had very very similar allegations to what we have here today in other words the defendant is charged with having knowledge of the and when we look at the allegations here we see the exact same type of situation and we could we'll revisit these these concepts if you want to talk a little bit about well from one but we look at the complaint now console consuls kind of generalizing when he talks about what the school here was aware of but when you look at the it's the amended complaint her graphs eleven and twelve are where they actually say what the school was supposedly aware of and when you look at those two paragraphs what you see is they were aware the game theory we're looking at that's that's the gist of the allegations they don't say that the school knew that the scene was in the bathroom that there was going to be a battle royal or the game or how do you want to term it and that he had a significant increase specific risk of harm they say well people people knew that these came a theme played on the premises and they knew what the game was that's not enough and that's exact same thing we look at we look at things and we look at  box and we see what the court looked at there again they're applying this special duty exception analysis and in famous of course as knowledge that weapons were routinely brought into schools did not establish unique awareness of the plaintiffs pro but rather a generalized knowledge of possible parents to all students then they say there are no allegations at the board knew the ridiculous student was in possession of a gun on the premises on the day of the shooting or that the board knew that the scene was specifically in danger of being shot that's exactly substitute those words with with playing this game in the bathroom and you see the conclusion it's got to be the same we look at wassen we see the same type of thing in a minute use of metal detectors in the course as knowledge of a general application afford to they don't limit this strictly to the police forces they look at the nature of the allegations to determine if they're asking to be protected that's exactly what they're asking for here you didn't protect this scene from this game that you knew for each of them was a risk and that was being played on the premises it's a provision of police services now how does that compare with the dope case they talked about providing of a bus monitor on a school i think there's a very big difference between simply providing a monitor with special needs students to be able to make sure they get where they're supposed to be and to make sure they're doing the right things and he does have an adult figure around compared the situation here where they're not just provision provision of police service it's akin to that so we think that that green case is very applicable and again when you look at how this court dealt with the application of the public duty rule in doe three t so i think there's a strong similarity there now they keep referring to twenty four twenty four the cases that we cited every once in immunity that's not applicable here what they argue that three that's not a valid cause of action in this case but we don't think three definitely applies in any regard because it when you look at the two subsections of that case you'll see in subsection a we talk about when a public duty undertakes to supervis third to supervise unless the employer the local public entity has a duty to provide supervision and post a comma well what that does is it takes us back to the public do the analysis and as we showed earlier there is no duty in this case so we don't think one way  even if you would said that that situation would that leads us to my last point with it which is essentially this this complaint if we get to the point we're going to say does it state a claim for willful and wanton misconduct and the answer to that is no and  i say that in in part kind of refrain back to my prior comments about the nature of the allegations from what they're charging we had knowledge of them what we didn't when you look at the cases that we laid out in our brief  watching the event take place and they saw all of these kids being whipped around the end of this chain where they hold hands as it was alleged that they knew this was a dangerous condition could cause a problem and lo and behold it did now in our case they're not a you had direct knowledge of a particular individual particular student that was doing interest activity at the time it was being done yes we don't have that here and that's what distinguishes our case from the cases that they cited and i would argue that threatened by other students the teacher knew that the identity of the leader of those threatening students she knew he was but yet she points out leader as a bathroom monitor and leaves room in the in the in the plight of assaulted while in the bathroom under the care of this duty applies you can find that they felt that way the acceptance cases over you know from the judge about the search or you can say well we're not going to address sat we disagree with what brad saying today you can move into the concept of is your immunity you can say yes under the green case we think that there is an immunity here offered under for daf one or two you can so we don't want to address that case because even if we assume there's a duty even if we assume there's no immunity we still have to come to the ultimate conclusion this test whether it's under his  first off up in terms of the amended complaint i would respectfully disagree with counsel it is not merely  think you have to look at the entirety of the first amended complaint pyrrhus eight nine ten eleven twelve and thirteen all peeled with the knowledge to have and all of those have to be taken together and the inferences from the stakes we say that kids have been hurt playing the game within the school that the school knew that the game was being played in the boy's bathroom we know that the school and by our hunching pick shafts and the abdomen as hard as possible they knew that it was being played often and for year year we knew that they knew all of this and that is the critical think it is not necessary that they knew that that happening was going to play it might be under the special duty exception but we're not dealing with the special duty it's happened we're dealing with don't want what it would be sort of like saying there is a huge crater in the play as opposed to jane green it doesn't make a difference we're not talking about what johnny knew or you know if they do they have ways we're playing the game in the ways bathroom and you've got it in take those in princes in the white most favorable to my clients now in terms of the public do you rule itself again what we're seeing here is there is not there yet snappin for justice use we still say it's still hot as there is where say we've got three justices who say for sure it doesn't the others have said we just don't