has very much so it's like strict liability then you're saying that if somebody goes off the road anything that happens if it is strict liability if you create a condition of danger through your negligence and someone is coming to your a there was there was nothing other than the fact that there was i saw this was an obvious situation that that existed this was this was not some act of god or a tornado picked her up and took her off the street you have to ask yourself she testify that she never talked to mr martin that maybe some of her coworkers did that she never spoke of them that she was there really to investigate the accident between i think it was ms morris it was the worst  who was injured and clearly there was damage used in the question but that the family this was the only breadwinner in the family she was the mother of the children she was the only here and her father was horribly disabled historically in a case like this back to eating hundreds has to do with him in carol and a person knowing the risk too is a person could take place but because of the fact they  are wanting to save the life or secure the safety of this person in danger they voluntarily take on that risk to their own person to try to save another this case is nothing of that sort even from the beginning of the case law but i do believe that there are cases that don't use those terms but those cases even though they don't use the term limited imply that only by the cases they cite which contain the requirement of imminent but also based on the argument to the jury of their own have within a short period of time so i think that argument doesn't fly either because he acknowledges that these things happen in a matter of brief moments but nonetheless i recently there's a new never of scenarios we could maybe twist to put in there but as you've indicated i don't think so i think that's an intervening ha's that breaks in the proximate cause nation don't think the fact that she is there or in any case makes that place a place of imminent peril or danger or for that matter any danger at all it's a place but the fact is she's near certainly is further from dangerous and they all said no it just looked like it was stuck and all of the individuals counseling behaving that all of the witnesses said they were concerned about another car coming along and doing what happened but that's not what the testimony was the testimony was them none of them thought that that would happen none of them were concerned about the location of the car reference to other traffic none of them were concerned that another car would come  along and strike any of them all of them testified that it didn't occur to them that such a thing could happen until after it happened which to force with what the majority i think a reasonable people would presume you're walking along a growl area sure was it nice and kind and thoughtful that this person stuck to see if they needed a phone call or something along those lines sure  not sufficient it has to be voluntarily assuming and no risk of harm to one's own person with the purpose of trying to secure the safety of the life of someone else and know the facts are here in this case and then when this is responsible for putting a third party in danger and someone else comes to rescue the mess the original rescue doctrine but more modern pieces in the last thirteen years have said whoa wait a minute especially looking into the jurisdictions  beyond annoyed have said i don't i think there was only one case in illinois that actually indicated that a person could put him or herself in that position of danger the beginning of it as well as most of the case until did those actions from what we know in the keep someone voluntarily assuming you know the risk of harm and the argument there is no when you take into consideration the distance away part the fact that there was a cell phone that was not utilized to call for help the fact that the conversation that she had when approached by you know that was very casual that she was even watching for on coming traffic according to the witnesses and that she i think it's important to she allowed for minor son to walk with her toward this  location if i submit reason mothers would have their minor son or child walk with them if they thought that they were assuming in the risk of harm i think all of those factors of course the catalyst of the way they is a pretty good estimate and in filing was this a place of danger you've got three things that you can look at number one the police officer testified in till you get traffic control be on the side of the roadways always a place of danger the