148 Ill. 2d at 159. Defendant argues that a judgment in favor of plaintiff will operate to control the actions of the State because State law currently specifies the procedure a school bus driver must follow in discharging his passengers and thus a judgment in plaintiff's favor would operate to control the State in establishing these procedures. Any judgment plaintiff succeeds in obtaining against defendant will apply only to defendant's actions, not other State employees and not the State as an entity itself. The rules as set forth in the Vehicle Code will remain the same. If we were to accept defendant's argument, we would have to grant sovereign immunity to every State employee charged with a violation of a State statute, an absurd result that the law does not permit.
Defendant makes several additional arguments that are beyond the scope of either certified question.
When deciding a case such as this under Rule 308, the court of review will not consider issues outside the scope of the certified question. 185 Ill. App. 174 Ill. App. While defendant's arguments may have some bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case, they do not convince us that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider this case. For all of these reasons, we answer the first certified question affirmatively.