table this case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred here in springfield the date of the accident was december eleventh two thousand and three two days later dr nord performed surgery on don the surgery that you performed at that time head is not an issue in this case when the case was tried t a number of issues which we have only i do not anticipate that i will have time to cover all of those in our short time at oral argument and so i will stand on any issue  twenty five percent negligent right that there were separate i thought they were instructed that if if they found that nor contributed to maybe that took care of everything that maybe there were two other work for that wasn't disputed so we don't have we we think that of course she's responsible for the injuries to the index finger is well but it doesn't go back the other way these sorts of issues shouldn't be arise i was chairman of the f b i criminal committee for five years and the whole purpose of that it was to make sure that we h elected to rest in oral argument the court heard care but like in this case rupie have cooley who's a radiologist who sighs i look at the x rays i didn't see the picture the first time but when i look at it now i see it and you have colin who says you because he i think instruction basically says that they disregard expert testimony and can use all common sense and let me explain to you why that's so that dr haig was looking to determine whether there was any entry to the point if it was not post surgical there is no way to explain away the fact that d and not allow trial counsel to cross examine dr kro the question is it would be negligence for him to have missed that let's assume that for the bulk of the trial why why is there something that goes that is relevant to this case how is it something witness they asked to how much of these injuries each of these individuals is responsible for and what strikes me most is rather tell is that with respect to these two injuries percent of the entire amount of her injuries no no what have have is it not if i were a juror why wouldn't i think that's what's go over the cuz there's other jury instructions that were given to the jury that specifically explained that  after i've read the entire trial looking at these verdict forms i think perhaps dr moore would have been found even have more viability and more of the damages assessed against the index finger if it had been separated out but regardless i don't see how your verdict you search to properly treat that and so forth but as i look at your perfect for her grip the second read stroke something that one hundred percent represents the total combined fault both person so when the jury is called upon at the key moment here to assess percentages you use language of one injury in this instruction how can it be correct he has the percentage accurate but i don't believe that it's confusing because the apportionment is exactly why the percentage of fault is designed that you asked why that form wasn't docket stated so that we don't have to go dow can we be satisfied the jury understood from this is verdict form that it was addressing only the speaking of an injury or the problems caused by the finger and they were but a bad thing happened to your client and franklin who is the codefendant was there and we have to give ms office some money for this bad accident hayes what he did or didn't do here has any relevance whatsoever but the answer to your question is dr hayes was if and when he was deposed of course he said there's no fracture there i've never had a doctor say i blew that very briefly you're on the fence instruction twenty nine or twenty nine it is the same instructions it's not confusing is that what continues evil which is only argument that the plaintiffs and the and reivers counsel made is an accurate statement of the law and the trial court gave no reason whatsoever for refusing not more relevant for the jury to do as mr kinski says look at it and see for themselves where the fractures are it's not more relevant than whether it all radiologist radiologist missed if he's the guy you want no one was finding the finger at dr pigg that wasn't that isn't that the danger i don't think that danger outweighs the fairness of allowing the the raid exhibit or over and over and over again before the jury but to keep out the fact that exhibit for once not read by the radiologist at the