question but it's a difficult difficult thing in its way to expose the by the very clear to every person owes a duty of ordinary care to all others to guard against injuries which naturally flow as a reasonably decision was based on the fact that anything is not the best guess but is it probable that when you are waiting at the train station as most people do every day that the probability of a train colliding yes i'm sure heard someone crossing the tracks will not normally or probably be out or so long a hundred feet it's very possible because i viewpoint of the plane if not from the viewpoint of the defendant here the question to me is whether if you're going to be doing something as stupid as running across a train track to try to beat a train can you expect that your  a danger and injury to somebody else in the vicinity and that should be a definitely a yes you should expect that when you're negligent like that because that is the basic physics and you may not know that you may be ignorant of basic physics but that's a subjective point of if you're going to live with so body you're going to go live in the fact that it was one hundred feet is that surprising at all because you've got a train moving at seventy miles an hour and it's a big big train and it's very very dangerous and it's not just the ability to the defendant who's the judge me running across the tracks should he have reasonably foreseen that what the plate that should to foresee what he should have foreseen that his idiotic act was going to cause harm to somebody else  foreseeable that if you're going to run in front of a train is what i'm saying the holding should be if you're going to run in front of the train you should realize because it's basic stipends that you can cause distinguished because  it was one of the one of the cases involved what we would call a person crossing and a person waiting or was were all the other cases involving suing the three that those are about the trade but there's a  that there aren't any other cases following the nature of this story accident that occurred to steps to work your position and shouldn't it shouldn't have anything to do with my position and because it's the  of i mean the bicycle you might think that seems more so why sicko your client that's a pretty easy well it shouldn't be any easier but i think you think me that's reasonably foreseeable a number of things are reasonably foreseeable this particular fictional scenario is adequate that doesn't make it take it out of the realm of reasonably foreseeable so that you've got the idea i just want to say and  deals only with the liability of the employer not the biter the biter has been in count one of that case and he had been dismissed but apparently i would assume the biter had no money there was no appeal about the bite or the bite or was the direct wrong to or the  the employer was a step removed saving kirk versus michael reese nobody's going the after the guy who ran into the tree they're going after michael reese and the doctor thinking kunis they're not going after would give you a chance to respond after we've heard from your opponent a nice work my name is robert scott i am here on behalf of junkie park special administrator of the estate of  joe the defendant out of eight thanks for listening to us briefly just to respond to some of the things that you to do that first that council just argue first thing i thought of was the example above automobiles that you all was a lack of foreseeability as you see it is that is that rooted in the fact that this was a human being that the individual or it isn't just a scale so if he were on a bicycle or in a car the result should be the same perhaps not a car a bicycle yes let me explain that's where i was going to and then you can tell me if you have another question it's really kind of simple and i can get more detail and more analytical if you want that is a situation involving multiple cars striking each other on the expressway the highway let's talk about just the train hitting a vehicle that an individual is in ok and where we go with that a part of vehicle hit somebody who on the platform same result because that's still a bystander on the platform it is different so it's not foreseeable that that bystander on the platform would be that the answer to that is that the analysis is the initial contact with the particular plaintiff is that foreseeable that that would happen and the answer respectfully is no but one other thing i want to guess and i know you're  they crossed behind it and the court said that it wasn't foreseeable that the driver coming the other way would expect those two to come out late at night in fact as it crossed i am not sure that that case really helps  that your opponent has pointed out that in this case we have a person who is crossing the tracks and the suit is brought against that person should that person have any notion injury to some because well through hindsight you could say that it happened it was all jacked of the reasonable to that actor at the time it happened now it may have struck him that he was putting himsel in danger it was not objectively reasonable it was not backed by him and under any of the cases it wouldn't be forseeable that if he did that ran a front of the train that a part of his body would strike a bystander  and as we point out in our previous automobiles are much different than individuals and as a whole different set of rules that regulate right and while there are right there are those of the individual who the individual who's responsible for driving a car is a state because so many that he was killed in that it would be possibly liable for an injury caused by parts of the vehicle striking people on the planet ok ok why is it different from parts of his body striking something like that let's suppose it gets hit by both the car part of the car and well first of all i would argue that part of the car striking a bystander one hundred feet away mostly because it's an individual body rather than something he might have been carrying with the car it might have been dry or that's definitely a big factual distinction with the clear why isn't this why and why is it different th foreseeability it's not foreseeable that an individual or individuals body part would make contact with this particular plaintiff in this particular case even though it might be foreseeable that if we were retrain for injury persons by an unreasonable or careless use of his automobile i don't think there's any question if someone was trying to keep this train by driving a several ton automobiles foreseeable that there could be injuries to others besides deaths that car and the train all right and i am not everyone i'm saying there's a difference i believe there's a difference the question is does  reasonable that wasn't taking him and even that you know you talk to counsel but this even the paucity of cases relating to a situation like this shows that it is not something that happens often it's not for just a little bit ahead of the lady who died it discusses whether or not he was contributory negligence and the court says no second thing it discusses is was the train in violation of its own rules these are the speed going through a stage that's what it discusses so it's not relevant to this is it fashion is similar in some respects yeah his handing the plaintiff was not in the class of persons that was protected by the statute that they cite they say this statute that says you're not supposed to go into a crossing if there's  if you listen to counsel's argument respectfully she's making the argument she must make but it's the just the standards arguments and hurdles i mean it is our argument or impasse our argument is that justice cardozo arguments he didn't know he could cause damage to himself to the degree he was going to do but he objectively is different and that's the standard here i think barry is an interesting case although it is different on the legal principles  most about a truck on a track that's the bourbonnais case there are cases there's tons of those cases when there was a truck driver who'd been driving to walk the time the traffic the train derailed and i don't know how many lawsuits there were rising out of the