witness that lho because his deposition was taken after the briefing had been completed at the request of the defendant and so the court granted the scientific opportunity to brief only that additional information so the with the panel like me to address that issue before we go into the actual judgement about that she testified that she stays with family members when she's not on the road but otherwise she drives a rig and i don't know why but somebody that may be on the   difficulty with your brief and i had it on the same point in a few different places one of the things that you say in a few different places page seventeen and page twenty three are good examples of the opening brief the blue brief is you say that wharton unequivocally testified that the truck was intent here just before the collision when she st saw her as begin to lose traction with with all respect i i really wonder whether you're playing fair with the facts there i read what wharton said and what worked and said was that she was and she did not say she was in th gear just before the collision what she said was when she saw mr perez start to slide that she put her flashers on and she began to break the rig and downshift and in downshifting she made it to what i think she approximate was rd or th gear and said in rd or th gear the rig would be going ten to fifteen miles an hour so my point with raising that is it seems to me that if you're going to challenge the district court's entry of summary judgment you have to grapple with that fact and i don't i don't see where you've done so your honor  district court is wrong to focus on the fact that she began downshifting and at the time of the collision was in rd or th gear and at an estimated speed of ten or fifteen miles an hour that was the speed at the time of spontaneous we did challenge them we stated as she noted in her opinion defendants do not challenge the qualifications that's true but argue that the opinions are speculative and not based on facts of the case in other words reliability component of delbert so that was out there in any event as this court noted in lewis versus citgo petroleum corporation even if a daubert decision is spontaneous it can certainly still be affirmed because the reliability of expert testimony is so very important and so it was not time to spontaneous it had been it really would not  there such as pay stubs credit card bills packages taxes she has her commercial driver's license in texas she lives with her sister while she is in texas she was actually served with the original complaint in this case in texas she uses her texas address for her p o box for federal income tax filings and the like as it was pointed out in counsel's argument is wharton is a long haul truck driver and she doesn't go home from work at the end of every day she is on the road for weeks and maybe months at a time and therefore is not constantly going back to texas but that certainly is her  both the record of events and the supplemental record of events support that fully with respect to the accidents self i think that's very important to note and to keep in mind that mr paradis and there's worton are the only two witnesses to the accident mr lowe c l o is another driver who saw mr prentice spent outs but he did not see the accident itself belief simply on the fact that she had him he did not see her before the impact he does not know how fast she was going either before or at the time of impact the fact that she hit him is simply not enough to separate this accident occurred is simply not enough to show negligence and that's obviously very well and won established with respect to the speeds no word yet if all of this was  to find any recent case sought in illinois that stated that simply the fact of the accident was enough to imply negligence without anything more such as without evidence of speeding without evidence of been disapproved more recently the two cases the two cases that the plaintiffs rely upon for this point from are both cases from this court from nine hundred and sixty six there are fifty four years on both of those wrong no no there are not there is no there are not but the more recent cases in the illinois state courts are looking also not just at the fact that a rear end accident for going at thirty five to six at a time when conditions are so hazardous that other drivers are losing control of their cars motors need enough to slow going too fast  he had been on the road all that morning that it was always a winter snow we morning but that the roads were not in bad condition he did not observe anybody else spinning out there were other somebody trucks that he observed along the highway traveling at the speed limit which is fifty five miles an hour in that area so there is simply is no evidence other than mr president saying i believe the weather was really fact that the evidence is from the point it doesn't make it evidence that is true however his further testimony that i believe she was driving too fast simply because she hit him and that's what he said too fast under those conditions well who's supposed to decide that the drugs are return we believe that on the record here that the district court did resolve it properly that there was not a material question a fact s the panel have any further questions for me again is saying and has testified you know i think she was going too fast because she hit me and also you know i would point out that plaintiff's to experts that's their conclusion as well i was about trooper kenny was an accurate representation of the record which we don't even if we assume all of that is true it's still a question of fact for the jury to decide not to be decided on the papers by the district court and for that reason we are asking the circuit to remand the matter for trial thank you