element is that the defendant either gave or sold later to the a p the third element is that the liquor consumed actually caused the intoxication and finally that the intoxication was at least one cause of the occurrence that there's quite a bit of very testimony on the issue of intoxication and i'd like to briefly outline if i could procedurally speaking your auditors the defendants who for some rejected in this case arguing that there was  cause proved as a matter of law that was disputed i here are the genuine issues of material fact that with all due respect i suggest beg that this really be overturned yes to cause the plaintiff testified that in his opinion the cause was motorcycle gang affiliation the plaintiff was a long standing member of a motorcycle gang by the name of scuse me help out and cause was so counsel would you say that that testimony that deposition testimony was definitive or was it more along the lines out here they started this another motorcycle club or one time we had a were two cousins were fighting over who dog one of them had consumed a case of beer that my argument to the jury was the fight would have occurred anyway in the absence of intoxication given this last stand a dispute over the coon dog the jury was out fifteen than the plaintiff themself as to what may have been the source of the dispute and that's why i asked the question about how did the plaintiffs characterize that statement because i'm don't necessarily agree that the plaintiffs indicated in his has something to do with the fight or the altercation whether it was definitive or not i don't know that that i suggest respectfully is what is left richard to determine in how do we look at that in consideration the fact as you mentioned one of the things the a side of my brief that clifford case which i think is a great example of an even bigger stretch terms of whether somebody was a cause and should have been concluded to be a cause as a matter of law in vegas the fell is out drinking in the tavern all day and he goes to his vehicle late at night he dies in the vehicle this is when they had the in consequence actions jerusha not just the buyers and he's out of his vehicle he smarts dollars testimony that it was this prior problem between the two that started the fight in that case there's probably a test on there was testimony that the two ai keys were scoping out the plate of that evening they've been to another tavern they call ahead wanting to know where the plaintiffs were that day and met up with them at the phoenix fair ok let's back up a little bit there was testimony that they were scoping the plaintiffs and then they personally called wanting to know where the plaintive was or was the testimony by can't remember mark starting i thought he testified somebody called him and said hey they've been over here drinking they're on the way to where you are enough not to mislead you are there was testimony that indicated there was a attempt by the way to locate the plaintiff that evening  i'm not sure of the source your honor but i'm sure it was there take a lot of time trying to locate that but i did review the briefs before i started arguments today and i recollect there certainly being testimony about them knowing the plaintiff was present at the bar and the plaintiff not being concerned about that according to legal the single piece of evidence that i believe existed was that he quote had slurred speech which frankly your honor i think supports the proposition that the jury needs to determine whether that single and issue i think is a rowdy he probably thought both of them were intoxicated they were out rowdy but having a good time and they characterized him as high strung anyway i agree these are all reasons that underpin i think the need for a jury to determine these issues i  wholeheartedly agree i've cited some of this but certainly these create genuine issues which are real facts in that case the that i've cited judge the fella great three drinks per hour from five thirty to one thirty a do believe it is for joe to give the jury in that case of that make its case we're still allowed to determine whether that fellow wasn't prosecuted when he consumed three beers or three mixed drinks an hour for literally ten hours i mean by that is there has to be at least some evidence that's contrary that creates a genuine issue of material fact the standards are different the better rule i agree but i think that in this case i can attack  granting of the summary judgment because in fact there were good issues of material fact be it in the form of upholding the verdict or that i know well i don't know your honor that it's necessary that i presented evidence that really mirror images or combat straightly that presented by the plain meaning he struck no he's not i can establish that there are a myriad of issues that jury could insider suggest respectfully more evidence than this case so my point is it may not be good evidence it may be a losing case at trial but the defense intitled i think to present the case to the jury and let the jury decide what caused this incident would it have happened anyway if sheen ballantine had been sober assuming he was intoxicated that's a legitimate question given what i think is a dispute a feud between these gentlemen i thank you documents and facts at that point in time the third man shifted to the defendants to come with something to it would have been available to say oh yeah i saw these i saw these two prongs and there they were problems they were they were fine you know those kind of things were available and they didn't do it so the trial court in this case he looked at he looked at what was presented to him and said he basically tied my hands now what about this representation of my opposing counsel that  eight individuals who were drinking at another bar were looking for your client and came bear stock in your client i i disagree with that i don't think there was i think in the markers that mark's dollar deposition there was there was some question that he had he had been in telephone conversation w someone called him and sent me a pair here again they're on the way there but i don't you know all the facts are that who knows with that so any suggestion that they were looking for your client not that i'm aware of  certainly when he walked in when he walked in that stablish know he saw shane valentine setting a bar and he was concerned about it and watched both up and it's also the least from my perspective he sees them and they're there they're having a good time they're drinking and patient there's no there's no confrontations inside this place where the plaintiff or or these two rowdy guys that act my client all the or all the other shots you could have slurred speech at some point you're automatically prosecuted as a matter of fact the only testimony about talks acacia that favors what it is that they consumed alcohol and that one of them had slurred speech the rest i suggest is it duck contrary it certainly creates genuine issues of material fact the affidavit of morris dollar is inconsistent with this testimony the plaintiff himself said i don't know if they were intoxicated absent this mean face at the end of the day just for the