With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Doe v. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 359 Ill. App. 3d 684, 700 (2005) (generally noting that a person is not liable for harm to another that results from the person’s failure to defend the other against a third party’s criminal attack). As previously stated, I believe that the trial judge was wrong on virtually everything. In addition to credibility, her decision on consent was also wrong, as evidenced by the majority’s vacatur of that ruling. Further, with regard to the portion of her order finding Kinko’s liable for negligent training and supervision, the trial court accepted Professor Closen’s testimony regarding nearly every issue and shaped her ruling accordingly, although much of his testimony was inadmissible. See In re Kenneth D., 364 Ill. App. 3d 797, 803 (2006) (<HOLDING>). The judge early on stated that she was well

A: holding that only relevant factors must be considered
B: holding that to consider whether to apply a spoliation sanction the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and the party who destroyed the evidence must be under a duty to preserve the evidence
C: holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible
D: recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible
D.