however, where the decision is wrong on everything else, this theory is little more than a legal fiction. In my view, affirmance of the trial court here leaves an entity that had virtually nothing to do with the injury potentially liable for the whole verdict, and the real perpetrators of the fraud possibly off the hook. This result is unjust, in my view. Waiver The majority find that Kinko’s has waived any argument regarding negligent supervision because essentially they find the cases defendant cites essentially to be not on point (going to hiring and retention) and unpersuasive. Where the party has offered authority, but the court is ultimately unpersuaded by the cases for whatever reason, in my view, waiver is much too harsh a result. See Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40, 48 (1992) (<HOLDING>). I think waiver is more appropriately applied
recognizing that a defective waiver colloquy as opposed to a defective waiver may be subject to a harmless error analysis holding that scientific hydrographic judgment and purely scientific considerations do not involve policy considerations and are not protected by the discretionary function exception holding that the decision not to remove materials during canal construction was based not on policy judgments but on technical scientific engineering considerations and thus is not susceptible to policy considerations holding that there were no public policy considerations to prevent a diving school from limiting liability for its own negligence holding that a reviewing court may in furtherance of its responsibility to provide a just result override considerations of waiver