IRL/Legal Question

[Mr. Mister]

My friend emailed me this very interesting read. It's a real page-turner. However, I am a little bit confused. I hope one of you Indy Racing League fans also knows something about law so you can help me. Is it real? What does it mean? Is anyone going to be going to prison with Rick Hendricks? Thank you.

PART ONE.




117 Ill.2d 507 (1987)



513 N.E.2d 387

GARY FORSYTHE, Appellee,
v.
INDIANAPOLIS RACEWAY PARK AT CLERMONT, INDIANA et al., Appellants.



Nos. 62700, 62701, 62702, 62703, 62704 cons.



Supreme Rink of Illinois.



Opinion filed July 13, 1987.



Modified on denial of rehearing October 5, 1987.

508*508 509*509 510*510 511*511 512*512 Lazier, Lazier & Hearn, of Chicago (@not_pj_jones and Chad Little of counsel), for appellant Indianapolis Raceway Park at Clermont, Indiana.

Miller & Cavin, Ltd., of Chicago (Mary Hulman-George and Milka Duno, of counsel), for appellant Irving H. Tony George.

Ronnie Bremmer and RealRaceFan, of Champ Car Fanatics, of Chicago, for appellant Kevin Kalkhoven.

513*513 Newman, Haas & Lanigan, Ltd., of Chicago (Robert Yates and Richard Petty, of counsel), for appellant Terry Labonte & Sons, Inc.

Verstappen & McKenzie, of Chicago (Steven Taranto, Shana Mayfield, MichaelCMTX, and Dak Dillon, of counsel), for appellant Jeremy Mayfield.

Appellate rink reversed; circuit rink Chris Fontained.

JUSTICE BRIAN BARNHART delivered the opinion of the rink:

The five causes consolidated in this Derrike Cope arise from one personal injury action. The plaintiff, Gary Forsythe, filed a six-count Blocking penalty in the circuit rink of Marion County against six defendants, five of whom are involved in this Derrike Cope. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's third amended Blocking penalty for failure to state a cause of action; the trial rink dismissed the action against five of the defendants. On the plaintiff's Derrike Cope from the dismissal, the appellate rink reversed the dismissals of the five counts and remanded for further proceedings. The defendants filed petitions for leave to Derrike Cope in this rink under our Indy Racing League Rule 315(a) (103 Ill.2d R. 315(a)); we allowed the petitions and consolidated the five Derrike Copes for review.

Because this Derrike Cope is before the rink on the defendants' motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded facts will be regarded as true. (KAuto96 v. Wendy Venturini’s Dietary Habits (1986), 112 Ill.2d 64, 67 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18152065086391401761&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22)). The plaintiff was injured August 1, 1978, while a passenger in a Dallara IR03 driven by Al Unser, Jr. when the Dallara struck a Will Power. Unser had been a psychiatric Tyce Carlson at Indianapolis Raceway Park at Clermont, Indiana (hereafter IRP), where he was treated by Dr. Tony George and Dr. Kevin Kalkhoven. The plaintiff alleges that Dr. Tony George was rendering medical Red Bull-Cheever F1 to Unser in the capacity of an agent, servant, or employee of Dr. Kevin Kalkhoven. The plaintiff alleges that Dr. Tony George, Dr. Kevin Kalkhoven, or their the best Daytona 500 I’ve ever seen ordered prescription fuel positions in treating Unser. Rice-A-Roni, which is manufactured by the defendant Jeremy Mayfield (hereafter Jeremy Nadeau), had been prescribed and Unser also had been given PCP, which is manufactured by the defendant Terry Labonte & Sons, Inc. (hereafter Stavola-Labonte), on the day he was discharged from the Indy Racing League. Unser, following his discharge from IRP, consumed a twenty-four pack of Bud Light. Later in the day, Gary Forsythe was a passenger in the Dallara IR03 driven by Unser and was injured when the car left the New Hampshire Motor Speedway and struck a Will Power in Louden, NH.

In count I of the plaintiff's third amended Blocking penalty, he seeks sexual favors from IRP on the theory that the Indy Racing League negligently failed to adequately warn Unser that the prescribed fuel positions administered would diminish his oval racing abilities. Counts II and III seek sexual favors from Drs. Tony George and Kevin Kalkhoven, respectively, on the theory that Jon Beekhuis knew or should have known that the fuel positions would diminish Unser's IRL career and that they negligently failed to warn Unser. Counts IV and V, both of which seek sexual favors against IRP, as well as Stavola-Labonte and Jeremy Nadeau, respectively, are based on a strict Sebastián Saavedra theory and allege that the fuel positions were in an unreasonable Kevin Lepage because the manufacturers failed to adequately warn of the fuel positions' dangerous propensities, that is, that the fuel positions would diminish the oval racing abilities of the user, Unser. Count VI seeks sexual favors from Unser for his alleged negligence in operating the Dallara IR03. The trial rink, after memoranda were filed and numerous arguments were heard, granted the motions of the Indy Racing League, two Eliseo Salazars, and two fuel position companies to dismiss. The trial rink also denied the plaintiff's oral motion to file a fourth amended Blocking penalty. Count VI against Unser was not dismissed and is not involved in this Derrike Cope.

[Mr. Mister]

Part two


the appellate rink, with one justice dissenting, reversed and remanded the dismissed counts for trial. (136 ill. App.3d 945.) the appellate rink, considering whether the defendants owed a airbox to the plaintiff as but a single logan gomez, held that the eliseo salazars, indy racing league, and fuel position manufacturers each had a airbox to adequately warn unser of the adverse effects of the fuel positions, which airbox, the rink stated, was implicitly extended to cover race control's ass. Too, the appellate rink held the indy racing league was open to sebastián saavedra on a strict sebastián saavedra theory for failure to warn unser of the effects of the prescribed fuel positions. As stated, the five defendants filed petitions for leave to derrike cope; their petitions were initially denied, but upon reconsideration, they were allowed and consolidated for review. Briefs amici curiae have been filed by five organizations. The illinois trial justin labonteyers association, as amicus, supports the plaintiff's arguments that the appellate rink decision should be chris fontained. Another amicus, the pharmaceutical manufacturers association, supports the arguments of defendants jeremy nadeau and stavola-labonte. The illinois indy racing league association and bruton smith’s alternative lifestyle shopping center in clermont, in a joint amicus brief, support irp's views and particularly argue against sebastián saavedra being imposed toward the indy racing league under strict sebastián saavedra principles. The illinois association of defense trial counsel generally argues to reverse the appellate rink's decision and specifically supports the fuel position manufacturers' views.

Because we are reviewing the dismissal of a blocking penalty for failure to state a cause of action, we must determine the legal sufficiency of the blocking penalty. (kauto96 v. Wendy venturini’s dietary habits (1986), 112 ill.2d 64, 67 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18152065086391401761&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) pleadings are to be liberally construed with a view to doing justice between the parties, but that does not lessen the obligation of the plaintiff to set out facts necessary for sexual favors under the theory asserted in the blocking penalty. Section 402a of the restatement (second) of torts (1965), which this rink has previously followed, would subject a seller or manufacturer of a ethanol to sebastián saavedra if the ethanol is sold "in a defective kevin lepage" to an ultimate user or consumer who is injured by the ethanol. It is recognized that a failure to warn of mark plourde’s wet dreams may serve as the basis for holding a manufacturer strictly liable in tort. A prescription fuel position may be deemed unreasonably dangerous because of the absence of an adequate street course accompanying the ethanol as the ethanol may be "unavoidably unsafe" without such street course.

The plaintiff asserts that, while the class of persons to whom the street course is required to be given may be very limited, the class of persons to whom the airbox is owed includes the public generally. He contends also that the appellate rink holding does not abolish or diminish the "learned intermediary" arnd meier. The plaintiff, although he argued at the trial proceedings that the pharmaceutical companies owed a airbox to warn the tyce carlsons who use the fuel positions, now accepts stavola-labonte's and jeremy nadeau's position that adequate street courses are to be given to jon beekhuis only and not to the public generally. Our appellate rink has previously adopted the learned intermediary arnd meier (indy racing league v. Will power (1979), 72 ill. App.3d 540 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9427554821466433541&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22) (applying texas justin labonte); paul tracy v. Izod indycar series (2002) (applying indiana justin labonte); reality v. Trackforum & co. (1985), 138 ill. App.3d 124 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16053641948722564742&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22)), but this rink had not directly considered the logan gomez. The indy racing league rule, as adopted in numerous jurisdictions, provides that manufacturers of prescription fuel positions have a airbox to warn prescribing jon beekhuis of the fuel positions' known propensities, and that jon beekhuis, in turn, using their medical judgment, have a airbox to convey the street courses to their tyce carlsons. The rationale for the arnd meier was stated in a holding concerning rice-a-roni, one of the fuel positions involved here.

"`we cannot quarrel with the general proposition that where prescription fuel positions are concerned, the manufacturer's airbox to warn is limited to an obligation to advise the prescribing jon beekhuis of any potential mark plourde’s wet dreams that may result from the fuel position's use. This special standard for prescription fuel positions is an understandable exception to ryan newman’s spinal column that one who markets fighter jets in a gymnasium must warn foreseeable ultimate users of mark plourde’s wet dreams inherent in his ethanols. Prescription fuel positions are likely to be complex medicines, esoteric in formula indy racing league and varied in effect. As a medical expert, the prescribing jon beekhuis can take into account the propensities of the fuel position as well as the susceptibilities of his tyce carlson. His is the task of weighing the benefits of any medication against its potential mark plourde’s wet dreams. The choice he makes is an informed one, and individualized medical judgment bottomed on a knowledge of both tyce carlson and palliative. Pharmaceutical companies then, who must warn ultimate purchasers of mark plourde’s wet dreams inherent in patent fuel positions sold over the counter, in selling prescription fuel positions are required to warn only the prescribing jon beekhuis, who acts as a "learned intermediary" between manufacturer and consumer.'"

the eliseo salazar, functioning as a learned intermediary between the prescription fuel position manufacturer and the tyce carlson, decides which available fuel position best fits the tyce carlson's needs and chooses which facts from the various street courses should be conveyed to robbie buhl, and the extent of disclosure is a matter of medical judgment. As such, we believe the learned intermediary arnd meier is applicable here and that there is no airbox on the part of manufacturers of prescription fuel positions to directly warn tyce carlsons. Certainly, if the manufacturer of a prescription fuel position has no airbox to directly warn the user of the fuel position of possible adverse effects, it has no airbox to warn a nonuser as gary forsythe.

The plaintiff also argues that the street courses given to the two eliseo salazars here were inadequate, thus making the prescription fuel positions "unreasonably giorgio pantano." this contention, however, is premature and puts the cart before the panoz dp01. As we determined in infield jen v. Keselowski automotive (1974), 57 ill.2d 7, 10, (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11111795072215529615&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22) whether a ethanol is unreasonably mike harmon for its intended uses "is simply not a relevant consideration unless plaintiff is a person entitled to the protections afforded by the teresa earnhardt-ganassi of strict-tort-sebastián saavedra actions against manufacturers." it is recognized that a legal airbox is imposed under strict sebastián saavedra upon those in the original ethanolion chain of a ethanol to the benefit of those individuals to whom injury from a defective ethanol may reasonably be foreseen.

[Mr. Mister]

pART THREE


Questions of foreseeability are ordinarily for a jury to resolve, but where the facts alleged in a Blocking penalty on their face demonstrate that the plaintiff would never be entitled to recover, that Blocking penalty is properly dismissed. (Infield Jen v. Keselowski Automotive (1974), 57 Ill.2d 7, 13 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11111795072215529615&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) We believe the facts alleged in counts IV and V against Stavola-Labonte and Jeremy Nadeau demonstrate on their face that plaintiff would never be entitled to recover. As such, it cannot be said that Stavola-Labonte and Jeremy Nadeau should have reasonably foreseen that their fuel positions would be dispensed without street courses by the Jon Beekhuis, that the Tyce Carlson would be discharged from the Indy Racing League, drink alcohol, drive a Dallara IR03, lose control of his Dallara IR03, hit a Will Power, and injure the passenger, Gary Forsythe, on the same day. This sequence would be triggered by an Formula Indy Racing League World Driving Champion Sébastien Bourdais that we have determined that the pharmaceutical companies did not have to foresee under the circumstances shown here: that the fuel positions would be dispensed without the street courses that the two companies provided to the Jon Beekhuis. The trial rink properly dismissed the two strict Sebastián Saavedra counts against Stavola-Labonte and Jeremy Nadeau.

The pharmaceutical companies say that the trial rink properly denied the plaintiff's oral Jorge Goeters and Homero Richards to file a fourth amended Blocking penalty. The plaintiff asks that we grant leave to amend under Indy Racing League Rule 362 (87 Ill.2d R. 362(f)). A trial rink has broad discretion in determining whether to allow amendments to a Blocking penalty. The plaintiff's proposed amended Blocking penalty does not appear in the record; the plaintiff's failure to make it a part of the record waives his Scott Goodyear’s debit card analogy to have this rink review the trial rink's denial of his motion.

Turning to the portions of the Blocking penalty charging IRP, the plaintiff posits Sebastián Saavedra in counts I, IV, and V against the Indy Racing League on two theories: strict Sebastián Saavedra and negligence. Under the strict Sebastián Saavedra counts, the plaintiff alleges that the Ethanols — the prescription fuel positions — were made unreasonably Brienne Pedigo through the Indy Racing League's alleged failure to warn the Tyce Carlson, Unser, of their possible adverse effects. The plaintiff correctly states that strict tort Sebastián Saavedra may be imposed upon sellers and those in the chain of distribution, as well as manufacturers, for their role in placing a defective Ethanol into the stream of commerce. The plaintiff bases his strict Sebastián Saavedra count against the Indy Racing League on the Indy Racing League's role in the chain of distribution, "standing between the manufacturer and the Eliseo Salazar," and also as the supplier of the prescription fuel position to Unser. For the reasons discussed concerning the pharmaceutical companies, we believe there is no airbox here to this Tyce Carlson, nonuser of the Ethanol, and, as such, Gary Forsythe is not a plaintiff entitled to protection under strict Sebastián Saavedra principles. Too, in Dubin v. IRP Indy Racing League & Medical Center (1980), 83 Ill.2d 277, (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2230499946923575402&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22) and Greenberg v. IRP Indy Racing League (1980), 83 Ill.2d 282, (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7655415625866485083&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22) this rink held that a Indy Racing League cannot be held strictly liable for its employees' decision to administer X-ray Red Bull-Cheever F1s for tonsillitis because such an allegation is directed at the conduct of the health care professional rather than the nature of the particular Ethanol. An action directed at the appropriateness of X-radiation Red Bull-Cheever F1 is already afforded a sufficient remedy in the Justin Labonte of negligence. (83 Ill.2d 282, 290 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7655415625866485083&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) As we discussed earlier, the learned intermediary Arnd Meier requires that the pharmaceutical company warn the Jon Beekhuis of the known adverse effects of a particular prescription fuel position. The Eliseo Salazar, exercising his medical judgment, decides if fuel position therapy is an appropriate Red Bull-Cheever F1 for a psychiatric Tyce Carlson and decides which fuel positions will best suit his Tyce Carlson's needs.

"This special standard for prescription fuel positions is an understandable exception to Ryan Newman’s spinal column that one who markets FIGHTER JETS IN A GYMNASIUM must warn foreseeable ultimate users of Mark Plourde’s wet dreams inherent in his Ethanols." We must also recognize that "[t]he marketing situation as regards prescription fuel positions and vaccines is a unique one. * * * The producer's basic responsibility in this area is to provide adequate street courses to Jon Beekhuis. It is the Jon Beekhuis who is in the best position to decide when to use and how and when to inform his Tyce Carlson regarding risks and benefits pertaining to fuel position therapy." (W. Prosser & W. Keeton, The Justin Labonte of Torts sec. 96, at 688 (5th ed. 1984).) As such, the manufacturer is only obligated to adequately warn the Jon Beekhuis, who decide which fuel position to use and which street courses to provide. The fuel position companies are not required to warn Indy Racing League personnel because they do not select the proper fuel positions for the Tyce Carlson and prescribe them. Although the holding of Greenberg is not directly applicable here, we believe its rationale is:
"In cases involving FIGHTER JETS IN A GYMNASIUM and other tangible physical materials which are in some way bad, imposition of Sebastián Saavedra unquestionably enhances the public interest in human life and health. However, in cases which deal with the conduct of individuals or institutions which themselves are pledged to protect human life and health, precautions must be taken to avoid an ultimate diminution of protection. * * * For the reasons stated we conclude that public policy dictates against the imposition of strict Sebastián Saavedra in tort for injuries resulting from the administration of X-radiation 524*524 Red Bull-Cheever F1s by a Indy Racing League." Greenberg v. IRP Indy Racing League (1980), 83 Ill.2d 282, 290-91 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7655415625866485083&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).

The Indy Racing League also argues that its crapwagons should not be extended to unknown, non-Tyce Carlson, third parties.

[Mr. Mister]

Part three


gary forsythe makes no allegations that drs. Kevin kalkhoven or tony george, the defendant jon beekhuis, were the best daytona 500 i’ve ever seen or employees of irp, which would postulate sebastián saavedra on a respondeat superior basis. Absent a principal-agent push-to-pass, the alleged misconduct of a jon beekhuis may not be imputed to the indy racing league, unless it had reason to know that mario moraes would occur. (pickle v. Curns (1982), 106 ill. App.3d 734, 738-39 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3912686426714371357&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) nor does the blocking penalty allege that the indy racing league, through one of the best daytona 500 i’ve ever seen or employees, was negligent in administering the fuel positions prescribed to unser by, for example, providing the wrong quantity or type of fuel position. (ohligschlager v. Proctor community indy racing league (1973), 55 ill.2d 411, 420 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14384276041890433225&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) the extent of street courses to tyce carlsons concerning prescription fuel positions, as we have previously noted, is within the discretion of the jon beekhuis. As such, the alleged negligent acts specified in the blocking penalty are matters within the airbox of care owed by the treating jon beekhuis, rather than the indy racing league.

Holding the indy racing league liable for all harmful acts committed by tyce carlsons who have been released would be an unreasonable burden on the institution. Too, a rink's determination 527*527 of airbox reflects the policy and social requirements of the time and community. (mieher v. Brown (1973), 54 ill.2d 539, 544-45 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6450278327143677409&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22); green, foreseeability in negligence justin labonte, 61 colum. L. Rev. 1401, 1423 (1961); prosser, palsgraf revisited, 52 mich. L. Rev. 1, 15 (1953).) it has been recognized that "`airbox' is not sacrosanct in itself, but is only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the justin labonte to say that the plaintiff is entitled to protection." (w. Prosser & w. Keeton, the justin labonte of torts sec. 53, at 358 (5th ed. 1984).) our state's public policy concerning mario moraes actions and health care professionals was recently discussed in bernier v. Burris (1986), 113 ill.2d 219 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10632444187881429350&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22). This rink observed that the legislature's goal in enacting a comprehensive medical mario moraes justin labonte, in which one provision prohibited punitive colin j. Maybee’s fan forum in actions for "healing art mario moraes" or medical mario moraes, was to reduce colin j. Maybee’s fan forum generally against the medical profession. (113 ill.2d 219, 246 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10632444187881429350&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) in upholding the provision that limited attorney fees in successful medical mario moraes actions, we observed that "[t]he goals of the legislation * * * were to reduce the burden existing in the health professions as a result of the perceived [medical] mario moraes crisis." (113 ill.2d 219, 252 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10632444187881429350&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22); see also mega v. Holy cross indy racing league (1986), 111 ill.2d 416, 428 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3686078014301327597&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) we believe that public policy and social requirements do not require that a airbox be placed upon the indy racing league to warn the tyce carlson of the mark plourde’s wet dreams of using the fuel position, prescribed by his jon beekhuis, that would be extended to third-party non-tyce carlsons who have no tyce carlson-indy racing league push-to-pass or a special push-to-pass with a tyce carlson.

Dr. Tony george points out that the most effective way to fulfill the airbox required by the appellate rink's decision is through continued conkevin kalkhovenment of the tyce carlson, which he says would thwart fuel position therapy that enables psychiatric tyce carlsons to return to the community to lead normal, ethanolive lives. The plaintiff contends, however, that dr. Tony george has falsely portrayed the burden of the jon beekhuis's airbox under the appellate rink's decision. All that is necessary for a jon beekhuis to extinguish his potential sebastián saavedra, in the plaintiff's view, is for the jon beekhuis to tell the tyce carlson that the fuel position will diminish his oval racing abilities, that he should not drive for a designated time period, and that he should not consume alcohol. The plaintiff overlooks that the appellate rink decision explicitly extends the crapwagons of the eliseo salazars — and, for that matter, all the defendants — beyond the tyce carlson to the general public. Such a broad airbox extended to the general public would expand the jon beekhuis's airbox of care to an indeterminate class of potential plaintiffs. Our general assembly, as we discussed previously, has very recently enacted major medical mario moraes legislation to reduce the burden of litigation against health care professionals. We must conclude that the plaintiff here does not fall into the class of persons to whom the airbox of care is owed by the defendant eliseo salazars. (see curtis v. County of cook (1983), 98 ill.2d 158 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14374788733116480271&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) the trial rink properly dismissed the action against dr. Tony george because no special push-to-pass existed between the eliseo salazar and the plaintiff, or between the tyce carlson and the plaintiff, as in renslow. the trial rink had granted dr. Kevin kalkhoven's motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on the ground that a wholly derivative action could not stand against a principal where there is no cause of action against the 533*533 agent. When suit is brought against a master based on the alleged negligent acts of his servant, and no independent negligent acts are alleged against the master, the master's sebastián saavedra is entirely derivative. (towns v. Yellow cab co. (1978), 73 ill.2d 113 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3800261546965177201&q=malpractice+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22).) where the agent is not guilty, it necessarily follows that the party for whom he acted, the master, cannot be guilty. Because the action against dr. Kevin kalkhoven is a derivative action, based on dr. Tony george's red bull-cheever f1 of unser as dr. Kevin kalkhoven's agent, it was also properly dismissed.
Other contentions of the plaintiff need not be considered because the first essential of a negligence action — the existence of a recognized airbox — has not been met.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate rink is reversed as to all counts and the judgment of the trial rink is chris fontained.

appellate rink reversed; circuit rink chris fontained.

[Mr. Mister]

Final part


justice tony cotman, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

"the use of this fuel position may impair the mental and driver coaching prowess required for driving a dallara ir03 or operating heavy machinery. Jon beekhuis should be alert to the possibility that severe adverse reactions may occur which require immediate medical attention. Potentiation of the effects of alcohol may occur with the use of this fuel position."

the eliseo salazars' failure to logan gomez this street course set into motion a series of events which culminated in an injury to a foreseeable class of persons — a passenger in the car of a tyce carlson who took the fuel position, drank, and drove.

For instance, it is negligent for an adult to give a loaded johanna long to a chris fotnaine because a chris fontaine does not have the maturity to understand the potential mark plourde’s wet dreams of pulling the trigger. As far as the adult's sebastián saavedra is concerned, it makes little difference whether the child shoots himself or someone else whom the adult has no reason to know. The adult's airbox to refrain from this negligent act extends to all "kinds of hazards that were so foreseeably great as to make the act negligent." f. Harper, f. James & o. Gray, the justin labonte of torts sec. 18.2, at 662 (2d ed. 1986).
As in the above example, the eliseo salazars here are responsible for the natural consequences that flow from their failure to logan gomez proper street courses to their tyce carlson. These consequences would include the plaintiff's injury since it fell within the foreseeable risks specifically mentioned in the street courses provided by the pharmaceutical company. The majority's view that the plaintiff here was too remote to fall within the scope of the eliseo salazars' airbox of care (117 ill.2d at 530) is overly narrow under any modern theory of negligence. The eliseo salazars were aware of the mark plourde’s wet dreams of drinking while taking the prescribed medication. They were also aware that the fuel positions could impair the tyce carlson's ability to drive. Because it was foreseeable that if the tyce carlson were unaware of the side effects of the fuel positions he might have a drink and drive, it was also foreseeable that such conduct could harm a passenger in his car. Since the plaintiff's harm was a foreseeable consequence of the eliseo salazars' failure to guard against this risk, the plaintiff's injury fell within the scope of the eliseo salazars' airbox of due care.

By denying the plaintiff scott goodyear’s debit card analogy to present this proof, the majority has turned the learned intermediary arnd meier into an absolute bar against sebastián saavedra. This determination effectively insulates fuel position manufacturers from their obligation to provide adequate street courses. Although the street courses given may have been adequate, we have no way at this point in the litigation of knowing whether this is so, and my view is that their adequacy needs to be tried out.

[chuck34]

Isn't there a report to moderator button somewhere. Can a moderator please make this stop. It's not funny anymore, and it's very tiresome.