buying indicating that he heard the testimony of all the witnesses and in the same breath essentially said that the only evidence before him regarding the case was that the defendant and maybe being at the same time and place as the  asserts is sufficient to establish that the defendant was involved in an automobile and said the harappan one establishes mr greste as heading in a westerly direction on this specific day proximately four fifty six it is the space that which is occupied by a person or an object in this case the person in the allergy or a plaintiff and the defendant and their respective bottom  the supreme court case four and the water were two defendants and ownership was at issue in that and the supreme court same comfortable describing the  put forth facts that are sufficient to establish that defendant was involved in an automobile accident and emissions of course are are conclusive and require no additional proof on the matter dispense with the necessity for moreover there were issues regarding denials in this plating to moral obligations in a paragraph and and section six ten provides that that a allegation that is not specifically benign should be deemed to be admitted in this instance particularly with respect to paragraph three four and five of the complaint of referees to civic planning and a case that the defendant crossed the center line and struck the vehicle and struck mr prices throat process and wine and struck mr dresses here the defendant answer that by saying we deny all allegations paragraph three essential i can understand the defendant's which meant that the plaintiff failed to meet the ultimate burden of proof here the court's decision was based on phase two the judgment order entered by judge kavanagh said that the court after having considered a review depositions of  type of clear language in the court can infer the decision was made under phase two therefore the standard of review is against the manifest weight and the trial court's opinion should only be reversed if it's found to be unreasonable arbitrary or not based on any of the evidence so the put the plaintiffs in this case have the burden of proof the burden of persuasion the burden to prove that the defendant was negligent and that the defendant's negligence cause at the time the accident the court found that a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff was wrong as it was a question of fact which in other words means that a finding in favor of the defendant would not be against the man manifest of proof in this case and the judge properly granted judgment in favor of the defendant really quickly with respect to the medical records the plaintiffs have the burden to establish number one that the medical records are reasonable  bills as being associated with a motor vehicle accident and the plaintiff could not recall which bills are paid or not in order to play foundation that they were reasonable customary on these bills it would be improper  clear specific denial that this person was driving intel a point in time where just where the judge at the top part was talking to counsel about that at which point in time the defense counsel said and if i remember exactly it was something to the effect of was was mr turton driving apparently driving the vehicle looked at paragraph three did not as if it were only one allegation contained him there were three and and that would be the first time that anyone could be bad alerted arguably to the fact that this individual is taking the position that the defendant was never involved in this accident and i think that's exactly what forty looks to and and and terminating his former section forty now section six ten is the fact that that's the basis by nature and if you're going to take the position that your defendant was not involved in this accident you must come forward at least once in the complaint and specifically the nine but here anything to do with i believe that that's