our next case for this morning is case number four sixteen zero four seven five shaper versus the city of springfield or the appellant we have mr nestler and for the  planners and maintainer of woodward street as it approaches intersects with stevenson drive further the plaintiff's complaint is not solely based upon the placement of a traffic control device nor is that portion is the portion of woodward street that approaches intersects with that only stevenson all intersections are comprised of more than just the square of the two overlapping roadways intersections are designed to have ro regard to the control issue because they don't talk about control of what works for it they don't talk about the design of woodward streets and the intersection that's created by that portion of the intersection in addition to that is the affidavit attached by the request to the illinois department of transportation that was attached to this map clearly shows that one hundred three is under the jurisdiction what's i township creates a question of fact as to who owns that portion of this intersection controlled black and when we look at that map we see a very important aspect of the intersection that is we're street has controlled by the city and black township now where's the evidence supporting the conclusions you're drawing from the map well dead i think it is in line with what a one hundred one b is designed to do those bags are squarely within the minds of the defendant which i don't have access to and this reporting now  or we got something from the department of transportation hook that typically wouldn't be enough who's there person you would call who have the expertise who could testify to this particular fact that you're serving to us to defeat their claims i think that the affidavit discussed by rule one hundred one a certainly apply more to the question as i understand it from your honor but b allows when we believe in other words when the plaintiffs are a party will believe that some evidence exists but that it's in the mind of the defendant or what is outside of the reach of the plaintiff and ok well what part of what you just said is prime it seems to me this is either something which is covered by this study tours the jurisdiction of woodside time ship or whatever it doesn't have anything here what's  their minds was it what i would respectfully disagree your honor to the extent that i can approach the defendant without deposition without iraq atory without discovery powers to ask them exactly what role they play on exactly which portions of this roadway what are we talking about you know the section there's a point where it intersects the right i think that yes but i think intersection the term intersection is broader than just the square that's formed by the exact point where the two ro point and can you be a little more specific about that as far as how the maintenance of the street leading up to the intersection caused the accident i mean have you sufficiently planned that i believe so your honor and i think that answer the maintenance aspect of the question have to begin with the signed aspect of the question because they're put in the alternative and i think it just naturally has its point a little more clearly i started with the design so let's identify the defect yes but they're not talking about how you planted in your complaint so i mean yeah you're very articulate young man but i want to stick to the facts in your complaint yet support so the defect that i that i point out in the point that i think right is first and foremost apparent that it's created a dangerous condition by its use and that dangerous condition the fact that supports that interesting decision is that when you're when you're up on woodward's tree about to turn on to see vince you can see traffic that's coming from the traveling west on vinson and in turn traffic is prevalent questions even so i can see traffic tripoli itself on what were streets so the allegation of fact is of course a dangerous condition what is the dangerous condition is this line of sight issue this is described in this first alleged as a unreasonably dangerous condition to remain on the property i pledged to in the alternative for that circumstance but the first foremost and primary brock's of the plaintiff's complaint is that a dangerous conditions created by the very plan and design of this intersection that the plan that the state of the city of springfield doesn't have any control over that so on its face the allegations for the six one nine or not contradict and it should be taken as true for the purpose of six one nine it stated the city of springfield has control of the design ownership and what is the legal basis for that argument well you can see it was go back a mile and i think that was that was problematic leading up to their section definitely not what i mean some fashion what i don't understand and i don't understand where your sanity who offices support this is that we don't just concern ourselves the intersection were concerned itself with one hundred feet for actually resides so the extraordinary burden of a dismissal on the pleadings based on evidence in other words asking the plaintiff to prove their case before any discovery before any other sort of effort can be made dismissing it outright at the beginning this extraordinary remedy cannot be of my arguments so the court granted the motion to dismiss yes or subsequent to that did you research your claim that you want to refile the complaint i asked him if he was also denying granted this and what in your effort to do this you should provide the above the plane that you wish to file he didn't do that in this case reading your brief said well we could be arguing this  filed in almost the end in practice i'd say almost one hundred percent of the complaints that are filed i get six one five or six one nine and maybe two percent of those are great maybe two percent there are routinely filed and routinely  the end of all but he still took language asking to repeat because in case the judge wants to see something that's not there then you'd like to have the you do that but by the same token i don't go to any of those thinking that maybe there is an effect here if i did i would just as file an amended complaint because i say you know what the difference right i think that i don't have an argument i should probably win the complaint i've done that before many times done it with an agreement i never once on a plane  it's not a matter of an argument it's a bit of a courtesy there is case was you know that suggests you really need to do this so here is king us to reverse the trial court based upon a lot of stuff of the poet court br a slip and fall that they should have used to tell why put up simply that they had the dangerous condition on their property is the bridge and so i don't think that technically it's a legally accurate word necessary to include especially at a younger age getting into it with them is you might as well recusal for the rest of your career because of that there is a there is a practical aspect to the law that we all as lawyers learn  i don't know how you are have your areas divided up but the question on my mind is this issue of leading up to the intersection and shit is that something that should be considered or are we just looking at the we are focusing on the intersection of the two road that's where the incident occurred and then as soon as we have a lead and provided affidavit which support that intersection where the incident occurred is under the jurisdiction of the state of illinois that city and that's what and so when you say that you're talking about the complete intersection were all the roads meet so there's no portion of it own by any into t other than the state correct as i understand the definition of an intersection there is no question here about who  setting forth a legally recognized claim as a basis for recovery in this case the state of cause of action for negligence the plaintiffs test to show and plead facts that show that the city o complaint contains and whether or not it importance of the defendant and the general way of the cause of action against them the fact that a defendant may be generally aware assumed that there is a sideline problem we're counsel says there's a sideline problem there's this very necessarily relevant to the fact that the accident took place at the intersection of news that something we should even be considering i don't believe that is something that we should be considering but again as alleged i would i would argue that we need more we need more required to meet their amended complaint to provide defendant with sufficient factual information indicating the character of the evidence to be introduced in the issues to be tracked and although plain the defendant with sufficient facts on the mission that indicate the character of evidence that they're planning to introduce or that will ultimately be turned looking at specifically paragraph twenty one   and although the complaint in this and state case does include more than just that one allegation i would argue and that the additional allegations represent simply more broad conclusions that are not supported plaintiff also argued in their briefs and attempts to find a conclusory allegation as an allegation that simply paraphrases an element of the cause of action and he argues that he's not done that in this complaint but i would also offer that conclusory allegations necessarily include allegations that it's based on the intersection itself creating a dangerous condition and so aside from the placement of fat sign allegations of like at the remainder of the allegations in the complaint i would argue that those allegations constitute broad conclusions such as those that the court know dating gravely i know which do not support a cause of action or  concluding i would reassert that regardless of whether or not the defendant is generally aware of the cause of action  action against the defendant the motion must be granted regardless of how many conclusions the complaint may contain and regardless of whether or not they inform the defendant in a general way of the nature of the claim against the allegations  those all can be viewed in the context of two things here what has been pled and what has been argued and they're completely different universes when we look back at what was played in this case when we look at the general allegations of the complaint at her at page a c three and four of the record and then we look at the specific allegations at least as to my clients on page that beginning in page c fifteen what we see is a common denominator of a reference to intersection placement of signs steep decline of the adley stevenson drive poorly maintained nature of the road intersection or maintenance of intersection reasonable unreasonably unsafe intersection and intersection is a point were two things meet we know from the police report we know from the allegations that the car in the motorcycle struck in the inter there's nothing in this complaint that talks about a design a failure of a plan a failure of it leading up it talks about the interview section where the two streets meet and when we look at the actual intersection and we say who owns it i don't think these affidavits are insufficient in any regard as to who owns or controls the intersection and that reasonable amount of property around it where the signage is place again a problem with respect to the signs the signs the stop sign was under control of i died in this yes neither of the defendants had control over that the allegation that there should have been some type of are the suggestion suggestion that there should have been something running up to or leading up to first of all it's not found anywhere in an amended complaint it's just not in the complaint at all but by i think even if it were it would run afo drive it has to do with the signage on at least stevenson drive that is someone else's property in the cases that we cited the colver case the fifth case and the gresham case all talk about that in a very similar manner as to this case and say no you don't have an obligation and as a municipality to provide scientists to warn of a commission even if you know of it because it's not on your property so even had they allege these things they would work but i think again we have to say what has been and what has been argued and they're very very different in this case and i think they define the questions that the court does ask is far as the notion of allegations of nailed that's leading undertake those procedures and we all know that when you file a motion for leave you have to give the court a copy of what you're saying should be filed and uncomfortable or not that's our job that's what we're called lawyers we do things like that in it you have to say your honor i understand you may have a predisposition on this but i have to protect my record i give that advice to our trial lawyers the hile daily you have to protect your record and you have to do things like this it may sometimes be uncomfortable but the case law including cases from this court are overwhelmingly clear there's a way to do it had he walked in even after the hearing and said well your honor i understand how you rule but i'm filing official motion within thirty days i want you to take a look at this he could have presented that it had a hearing it said this is what i'm talking about this is the context that i'm putting this in him while i'm saying that we have a cause of action the court could look at that and said i still don't think so or the could court could have said you're right that's an interesting angle and i wasn't thinking about that motion granted that to make that back you can't do that you never let people get away with that you just can't advocate that type of approach and it was very simple very simple and again when we look at what was  all goes to the intersection it's all covered by the affidavit and all these additional arguments are just that their arguments are no facts play this affidavit that they offered in contradiction to the two affidavit said that so the defense presented i believe that you might have facts that might contradict what you just said that's just i say i've never seen that that's rather interesting that does not contradict an affidavit of someone saying i'm in a position of authority over this particular amount of records or documents or this job in my capacity is that i say we don't own that property they did if you want to counter that you have to bring in somebody that says well i was there for this window and i know for a fact that there was another deed or something that transferred this property it to create some kind of question that makes a good look at that and say now wait a minute you're saying ownership you're saying no one or ship whether or not you have credibility or not we have the way that it has to go to a jury we have to move forward we don't have any  you can't just say i believe that you have facts it might prove differently from what you but now that doesn't work counsel has talked about the design he talks about design planning to different contexts one of them it has to be in the context of leading up you should have worn well i think the cases we've cited address that we have no duty to warn of the condition of someone else's property but the other thing that i found a little disturbing at first was he's essentially arguing in that well when you when you built the road you should have picked another location and maybe it should have been where stephenson is at a slow should have been at a high different spot so we did have this line of sight problem but interesting if you look at the affidavit that the city produced and you look at page to see eighty eighty one eighty two the interesting thing that you'll find is that when we go back to the actual submission of these documents by by the state back in one nine hundred thirty seven the put it in very simple terms i that came to us i wrote is there how can we design and plan something when we are you were there they came to us they control where their intersections going to go and they control how they set it up because they own and the higher authority controls the lower authority so if you look at those documents on those pages you'll see that when the state plan this road we were already there so it can't be that we put it in  so i just ask you to think about that the context of the allegations again i keep coming back to two two to two points what's implied and what's been argued and it's that simple when we look at what was played if else we will look at what was argued they had a chance to do that and they didn't and they're just asking this court based leave to amend on what they're representing you need to know what it looks like i don't know what it looks like i don't know what their complaint would look like they don't know what it looks like they've never drafted was what the problem here is and that from the use of that manner design it indicated there was a problem whether there's a case or not that discusses that intersections design necessarily includes the roads th connect one another or not i don't think comes into play because it's just a factual reality because we all live in the intersections can exist in and of themselves there are roads that connect and those roads necessarily have roads leading to the intersection because there's no line of sight the stop sign is a component but there is no allegation in the plaintiff's complaint that anybody should have that anybody failed to provide traffic signals or signs and that's what the immunity t the dress there's nothing doing it doesn't have to do with that for the purpose of these defendants maybe illinois has something to answer for that but that's in the court of claims that's filed and it's just sitting there waiting for the conclusion of this but the fact the matter is that it's the design in the plan of this intersection that these defendants are not the placement of stops and if we look at the charging allegations and when we very specifically see that that's what's charged we see that there was a failure to remedy a known dangerous condition was created by the plan design that should have been known from the use of statutes cited in austin or in the alternative that there was a maintenance issue which i've already discussed with your justices the fact matter is these things are alleged  have to do with placing a stop sign it has to do with the fact that a dangerous condition exists on this property that led to this injury and they had a duty to remedy that condition has played and thank you thank you counsel w