ordinary to avoid a collision most notably there is no reconstruction as you stated that other more action farms at the speed under the load or the weight that he was carrying that there was an opportunity to break in and those are all calculations which certainly would have potentially been relevant to a jury determination and absent there really was nothing presented to the  and i'll be glad to take questions however the perm and pulling into his lane he said in fact that when he realized he was too close but he began to brake when he realized that the truck was going slowly three hundred feet ahead of him and the way he didn't have to stop and there was no need for an expert to talk about how long it takes to stop this was very good if his judgment again you said that the duty to record a road when he became aware in connection with that ok another related question that i have here it seems to me in person not involved in the case that this instruction on duty to look just popped out all of a sudden even though the district judge had ruled in a motion in limine and that such an instruction would not be given inherent in the record any discussion from the district judge about why you started it decided to give this there would have been an actual duty to but because he saw him that's when the judge decided that it was appropriate to give a neutral jury duty to look instruction but i'm asking was it any good district judge e afterwards i think and i'm wondering whether there would be any discussion beforehand or whether that is the only place batchelder right that's my recollection i do recall those remarks and they were babe i think just prior to reading the jury instructions during the trial but again he said she what's there to be seen it was already admission that he sat and therefore that's what triggered the duty to look and that's what we argued and nothing more than that and it certainly is this jury instruction and it was completely harmless even if there was something wrong with it i mean if we accept the clear vision of this man stoop short distance on that payment that is absolutely true and it in the judge's instructions says oh you're to achieve that which a reasonably careful person under like circumstances would have seen its negligence  us when he saw the truck at the side of the road and certainly no later when he saw the truck driving on the side of the road and moving him to explain the traffic which he said about its own testimony anyone can conclude that he had not time to hypo think about a person driving in that i made turnpike and batting you're going to read it a book while they're driving and there's no law that prohibits reading the book while you're driving and suppose that person and just literally going to the rear and in that right lane what would your position still hold in that instance and what case would you point out to to help you or to hurt driving but there ought to be an issue but to take that example i do believe that yes you are dealing with a situation where a driver with the right of way cannot be at fault no matter because i don't think a driver simply in front of you that happens to be driving a little bit more slowly would be a driver vectrex intruder and violates your right of way like what we have share