gregory a lot of livy to gail was the driver of the vehicle in front of the other two vehicles target was in the middle in the lot was the third vehicle in this motor vehicle accident  from the case a lot and d m p thereafter filed third party contribution action against irvin and later ron more than two years after the accident and more than one year after allegation of a close personal relationship i don't believe that the appellate court in warsame ever made a determination as to the nature of that relationship i thought the court did point out that he just has to be a relationship between the partners i know that the courts have since referred to a close personal relationship but the the wording where they conclude that they must have been inclusi or the reason why the plaintiff did not sue the settling third party to find it was due to that relationship but what about johnson and where the two individuals were married after i have a settlement three thousand dollars and you have testimony from the driver and the complainant here that immediately after they were struck by that are a lot striking that he said he was sorry he must've been these down days doubt or something he was on the cell phone and he hit them and it was his fall that is in this case at least there's a suggestion of that through then apparently there's but that i thought the testimony was from the plaintiff and the driver that he did say he was sorry that he was the ex and then the woman in front of the mr gale said that she was struck there's some question about whether there was one big in this case did he say more than that i believe he only said that he was sorry he specifically denied making any admission that the accident was his fault well what is i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i get your political it's not necessarily an indication that well i'm sorry that you're looking at whether the trial judge here abused her discretion when she made good faith that moment that the three thousand was a good faith that one based upon everything that was presented right and wrong i mean it's pretty pretty hyperbola just were us to say that no reasonable person would have agreed with what he did well but that there are there are a couple things that we believe that the trial as i understand it abuse of discretion is that the decision was not based on the record in front of the judge the other country record and in this case there were a couple of errors we believe that the judge made during the hearing on the motion number one she concluded seven times that the governance in this case only showed one impact to the jail killer cold wet day all testified unequivocally that there were two impacts to there were two a hard one and then upon later run she did she obviously equivocated a little bit but no one ever really tied that equivocation to this other accident that she threw up there she was present on a number of details because it that far from being i mean is that a reasonable or is it kind of the basic thing that you know if you hit somebody from behind you might be the one that wasn't paying attention well again we have a three vehicle accident here and so the question is really what it boils down to is who hit who first ok and so the evidence in this case that supports the durban hits the vehicle first is the testimony by derbent himself that his tail lights were working on the day of the accident propelled forward now we all know based on the law physics said if you are really rented by a vehicle all your body is going to move backwards and forwards so all all of these things taken together strongly suggest that it was michael durban rear ending the gale vehicle first and that would account for the heart attack that gale herself testified to and that lot thereafter ran the rear of the vehicle which apparently then pushed it into a hail vehicle for that small bump that she described selo the circuit court did not take this evidence into consideration and the liability of the settling parties is one of the considerations that the trial court has or the potential liability of the settling party and so we submit that this evidence strongly suggests that durbin is the one who is vehicle made  initially sued durbin and then ten days after he served with process voluntarily dismissive they suggested that perhaps they didn't want to run into rule one thirty seven seven volunteers right and meeting of course at that point she could not have been reinstituted her claim against irvin and this was you know this was after by the way we had obtained this discovery from would be a gale and the testimony of the other drivers which again strongly suggest that durbin was the driver who made the initial impact of the saxons so the fact that they waited until the room could no longer be brought in as a airlines the supreme court of illinois reiterated that point it's also very clear as this court has pointed out that when a good faith settlement is approved by the circuit court the standard  the evidence in this case that was multiple testimony through depositions as well as a police report was not simply looking at a police report but all of the deficit testimonies review so that she reviewed the two depositions of your client durbin and he said that he was sorry and that he must have dazed out third party defendant moment i'm sorry they played plaintiff malott testified at his own deposition he wasn't sure whether settling and in fact in the case of well my question is more specific yes it is that is the rule from the rule from ball a how that relates to the to the fact that you know within which to refile around three years because i guess i'm not clear on the question because she did not refine it during that time paul says that you know simply because the sta quite well there one year had passed and so she could not refile the suit i don't think that's different necessarily than the ball with situation so i'm not seeing i suppose a difference there between this and the bog situation additionally that was not raised further the law is clear and i believe it may have even been johnson versus united airlines where plaintiff alleged well the reason that you tortfeasor contribution act is clear and the law is clear there has to be a showing of collusion or bad pay and there is not and respectfully i don't believe that can read into the act more than that than is there and in this case again the circuit court at length looked at the record and it actually held in evidence you're hearing and found that there was no evidence of  circumstances very different situation than horsing in our terms i want to talk just briefly about the libby that gail testimony because that third party plaintiff relies heavily on that testimony saying there's evidence of brain i could be combine it with the other accident my memory was fresher back then when she testified there was only one impact shortly after the accident her testimony is really to say the best circuit court's discretion to do this third party defendant that their burden of showing there was a crime a face he could face that only it was a legal settlement between the two parties the law does not require and make that determination again in this case the circuit court held the full of the evidence you're hearing and a very lengthy and well reasoned decision listen all of the reasons why twenty two exact testimony that was  depositions and and carefully discussing a worsening case this case much more actually on point with johnson versus united airlines haste then morsi and the court recognized that the court's decision in this case was not to get beyond the bounds of reason it was very reasonable based on the other hand and as in johnson the court did not place emphasis on any single factor but it looked at all of them there was no evidence of collusion in this case which has to show is about which is the equitable apportionment of damages we have a plan of claiming twenty four thousand dollars in medical specials and she settles with thirteen for three thousand dollars i've already pointed out to you the evidence in this case that suggests that durban was the cause of the initial impact between the three vehicles and if a trier effect believes that testimony that we have the primary tortfeasor settling out of a case seeking act in excess of fifty thousand even know what a jury is going to find in terms of what we settle for twenty or so people for twenty four thousand maybe maybe not i don't know i can tell you unequivocally that three thousand dollars does not meet the threshold that would give a second thought as to whether this was good faith or not three thousand in this case very clearly is not good faith in this case oh oh again i just go back and reiterate that our primary complaint with the hearing that the circuit court upheld is the judge's conclusion that there was no evidence of two impacts when you have a country record clearly shows that there was did find if you only stated that they may well mean again i didn't see anything that suggested that the orson court found this close personal relationship between the two parties again or allegations made by the objecting fenton but nothing that the appellate court made a specific finding i don't know if they accepted that or not it's just not explained in the opinion so again based on the errors that we believe the