against plant seeking damages from playing with yourself because of the action were simply asking for a portion of damages probably but you're changing the theory of the case the theory of the case was negligence does right and counter claim because he simply doesn't have standing if you were wilfork wotton reckless as opposed to intentional but something else that was the issue that was dealt with  good faith in our concern was simply this as a result of the reading case the satellite is concluded and there is a good faith finding the party is removed from the who was ninety nine percent of all reached a settlement before a trial the director found it would have gone to dry and would not have had the opportunity to argue to the jury say that to dish eleven seventeen applies only to defendants or remain a trial correct so you're saying that that's still ok in good law but when you're determining a good faith settlement by a defendant who presumably is getting out of the case that you have to take into consideration their culpability before you enter the good faith fine in fact of your example ninety nine one you'd say you can't do it and therefore that defendant would remain a trial and to dish love seventeen would apply is that how you see rick really still being good law for your roof when you bet that i mean that would be the op if reidy is still good law that's the only option to percentage of non medical damages now obviously the cleaner approach would be to reverse really to overrule really and in the region cision there was a discussion about the whether or not it's unfair to a non selling party to let a party out and thereby present this non selling defended with the the prospect of being on the hook for one hundred percent of the damages that argument is made and the response in the major plurality i knew was well that that's something that the legislature should take into consideration what is the good faith hearing look like under your under your analysis of determining culpability what is the what is the hearing looking i think would be basically looking at the evidence that we presented in the trial court and  allowing the judge to come to a conclusion whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the ninth something hearty would be found less than twenty five percent at fault in this case  whole lot of sense of those circumstances either does the defendant then that wants to settle have to make a decision when they get that order of its is denied without prejudice whether they want to participate in the trailer and i think they don't i mean that's an argument that has been made  against this and it would cost money to defend the case there's no question that you know it's it's a problem there's no question you don't see any way of doing any procedure prior to trial and determination i mean i want to mention there are some cases where it's pretty easy i mean you can just look at the depositions and indicate ok i think that this is purty years ninety nine percent at fault but there are some that are close right so there is there any way to do it prior to trial well other than what i suggest that i can't think of that anything i mean it's not a clean approach but it's an equitable approach statute is not serving  his opposing counsel said regarding having the hearing after a trial and what that presents to the defendant that i would like to get out of the case and would like to settle the case for the same points out the other side of the korean about going after the deep pocket that is only one person at fault which also is problematic so how do you balance that you have to strike a balance between the two competing policies under the contribution act want to encourage settlements and it's actually been said to be an early settlement if you can and what is to portion fall between joint tortfeasor and so when you try to do the read in ellis i think you're tipping the subsection to dish when one was seven and the opening worry and it was then it only meant negligent tortfeasor products for the strict liability and your honor stated that you believe that they have to do possibly with the reading them i put on file is going to change the complexion of this case and i'm going to be able to keep these defendants in because they're more hopeful and what i would suggest to the court and toss of counsel is this case comes down to choice would condone evidentiary trials on these kinds of cases run you have a jury demand so is it really fair to have a charge decide who is at fault to you other defendants who may not be objecti specifically at that point in time look at the possibility that you have the one percent defendant versus the ninety nine percent and i don't mean fair or worse or would that not enter into an analysis of whether i'm someone who's in good and once we go back to just a plain us complaint now gents this is a case of crying out for good faith by me it's an abuse of discretion standard which is a very deferential standard by this court this court another chance in december i'm hearing problems with what the procedure looks like this is denied without prejudice for the presumably of the defendant that wants to settle they have to make a decision to  before hand maybe you can in some cases like we talked about it or you know slam dunk says to you know who is more culpable in the other but then that process after trial seems to be very