because we're talking in a prison context you know but i'm talking about a plane error in the jury and so you're arguing alternatively that any errors forfeited on either side that there is no error and that the  what the jury means because that's the goal here a victim in the cases is perilous a court instructed the jury that there was an element that it had to find in order to return a verdict for the pla the jury did not find that element in fact rejected the fact that the element had been established that and then that is the end of the case written it returns a burden for a certain amount of money for our cause of action that it says doesn't exist and then we have this do part of words coming in here to try to take it to try to justify and explain what is very plain and simple agency that you assume far and punitive damage should never been part of the and rogers which means that the jury had to find the defendant failed to take proper media action and because the jury found that the defendant knew that applying force being sexual and that they acted to definit acted with reckless and malice that the defendant is liable is that do you need to put those two together or is the ask both questions and so if they did either but it but you're still left with each don't have an answer to the alternative question that's an error by the court but we know what the answer is the jury the judge instructed the jury on two occasions plus the verdict form itself that this was an element object cause of action that you had to prove and that the jury had to find it in order to determine ma bell ok and there was no objection from you either look like the suggests is that well it's really just the number whatever the number is the jury assigns that's the verdict and you know they win the day therefore you know good for them but but like you said how do you how do you support a finding of images when when it's that under rule forty nine b i think that we finally were able to bring a motion to be kate the jury award of a case that says you were timely as opposed to not timely you are unfortunately i do not have something before you today to decide to that with they do the best they can right in that if that once if they realize that the charges messed up at that point then they can they can ask a new question you get the council to agree that the charges messed up and then you know question that they didn't answer either way not predicated and so you got the answer the question and then you can haggle over what the answers mean right i mean you know there's the lot of things the court could have done had it known timely you're right i don't buy into do you believe you have to encourage instigates or what's the end goal or so or else you're not liable to believe that that that's the law your honor i was not a trick question i think it is i think it is and i think also it is a trick question no i think that is the case that you have to find those things before proceeding ok so you think that under the law the law is that you have to encourage endorse or instigate and that with adequate affirmative answer to number eastern district got it right i think in the in the in saying for what the state of liability was and again i didn't find fault with it and i think that's a correct interpretation of the cases and everything with with how you are to look at that in the prison harmonize the entire verdict and while you would argue that you could predicate the punitive damages questions and you shouldn't even have to answer them they did answer the punitive damages question and they found that your client acted with malice or reckless disregard what how do i harm and how does the court harmonize that and still come to the view that there is no liability on your client's part that your honor just the your answer to that question is it doesn't matter whether the jury thought they did wrong acted with malice or whatever they acted with they did not satisfy your requirements and instructions of the jury to find a cause of harmonize and so can you try to harmonize and bandage dolly thinks it's just normally but karr tells us we have to try to harmonize so could you try to harmonize that will just just by its very nature  seventh amendment require are that we decide the issue here that we're talking about strickly and all of a by looking at the answers to the special  decide here by looking only and strictly to the special issues in the verdict and the findings that it but they did not do anything to stop them either and and so that was a that the argument was what maybe they instigated it but also if they didn't have to gauge it that they didn't remedial remedy the situation that they knew about and could have and can you look at what the case is banned and what the jury was told the law was and say that gives us the meaning of what the jury has decided which do you  under that i mean that would be essentially dorce means that here you know in that what that was what we do to the jury well it's the law is very clear these are two separate claims she had two separate claims and you're talking about in your case my case that they had to meet either one or the other and i agree i mean you have to either you have to say oh you know that she had a claim they were doing both she lost on the instigation the and then the judge doesn't ask about the remedy and you just didn't ask about the instigation is i understand that you're referring to would be that it possibly moving the desk to in a way to accommodate the needs is that what you're referring to i think whatever it was in the jury is very different ways to make a claim of law billet in this case one they took more responsibility themselves the office they did things to encourage what the prisoners were doing the other is they just sat there they didn't do anything except ship there and let it go along your honor and i think both of those scenarios are not supported by the record meaning that nearly they just sit idle or did they actually do anything to instigate i think the record if if a guard has an issue with it with an inmate he has an instruction in or me as part of her duties to inform them that if he doesn't write the person up they can't go ahead and he then you know do something to discipline that person which would have to help you decide this question by looking at what the damage issues war found to be and put that all together with the two different claims through and what the court told the jury to begin with about the not remembering what they knew or should have kno not that they had to find this but to tell them what a lot of off you can you can't put all that together and say well the seventh amendment would require giving effect to that jury to give prisons comes into play if we were to come back and say hey we're going to require instigation and then you can just let it go and ignore what kind of fear is that that let's go to the jones plugs we can get rid of the bouncers because  to explain what they need or three the judge can order a new trial so if we really can down the point where because they did me it's actually at the time we're left with an inconsistent verdict i don't think we are