the warnings that the expert witness testified to ever since the u visionary act of seventy nine eighty nine congress has permitted has allowed the states that are common l a balance between federal and state interest and that the only limit we speak to the state law is warning any east river that state law may not this lease essential features supreme court case have held that there was a federal maritime law for personal injury and the court held that notwithstanding that if there was a state law that was more favorable to his they'd lock up ploy because the purpose of amateur report just in case you don't contest that finding on appeal well we so since you don't contest the finding on appeal as the case comes to u i have to assume that it was the good boat that was used not because in fact it was the boat that was used but because of the way the records developed here and and then i just have a hard time seeing how you win if is the court excluded then and you really don't challenge that exclusion in your brief because you say you say there was this exclusion we can't rely on the report and for the design defect argument not time a reasonable alternative we're just trying to figure out is there anything in the record that supports the idea that the boy used is the kind of golf expert testified it would a design defect to have used in the problem is that the district court said well that evidence is in the deposition because he says you use that kind of bold but he explains that in the report itself doesn't say which kind of boat was used so we're trying to figure out is if there's no nothing in the record to show what kind of boat was used how do you get past proximate cau with respect to the issue of the metals and i just want to clarify a little bit of the record there first of all the record does not contain the specific ations to which counsel was making reference to the summary judgment record as because you only get to that is you sure if there's any indication that the wrong steel was used right yeah yeah well what you would challenge but it's the wrong still but ok for my purposes but our position isn't this report correctly  practice with respect to this type of is an engine no it's actually it's a steel rod in this type of rod i won't find anything to indicate that in the past this type is still had been used in this would apply here as well roshan natural all metals rust in seawater and particularly one that has been something needs to be specified here in this case is that the evidence the undisputed that would address the design was that he had occasionally sent it out to mechanics for maintenance but had no idea whether they knew anything about the manuals or warnings of a sort and we think that that is critical factual distinction in this case that  was going to go on this issue we had actually predicted it in our brief which was filed maybe two months before the ink you down so that that doubt i think has is no longer should be present in the court's mind i focused on the lack of proximate cause because there are some statements that you know read in the light most favorable to the palace might be read to support a statement by the expert that there may have been inadequate warnings even  then frankly that itself especially but the fact is that there was no evidence whatsoever of it also connection and any such evidence would be defeated by the facts that i mentioned earlier the fact nobody is the owner provide a basis for concluding that it was the three o three ball right decision testimony as a factual matter if admitted if