so if it's the case if it's the case that nothing noble kid would have protected him how can you say a lack of warning would have made a difference because even if there'd been a twenty three thousand pounds for the weight limit under federal new jersey law and if you go to the actual weight he's supposed to be twenty thousand pounds price on the federal state seventeen thousand one hundred twenty seven thousand seven hundred twenty in this case is pretty clear it's not going to protect anyone if there's a dynamic force here and so wouldn't that be the type of worry that should have been given you might think that because you're not a commercial drivers wouldn't have a dramatically different understanding than the one just g m pro just mention isn't that the nature of mystery nurse testimony that your have to load up against that peters under god there's no question that you've got opposing evidence the question i'm trying to ask you is you said no commercial driver would understand that there's protection  can the courts say assuming everything else remains the same is it proper in a failure to warn case to assume that everything else would have been the sa and i guess what i'm asking is is that proper assumption to make when you're making the proper proximate cause determination because isn't isn't the point of the wording everything else will remain the same something the burning yeah i think it's true that there are the experts they withdrew mr indicated yeah you could there's nothing you could put between this man and that moving steel that would save you if everything had been the way it was but i understand the argument from your opponent to be if there had been a warning things wouldn't have been the way they were he would have strapped it down differently he would have used the chains he would have done something different had he understood this is not offering me protection i've got to do something different here the warning is telling me to do something different and i got mr rudy meyer telling the jury you know in the face of a warning like do so your your argument in response is even with through the miers testimony a rational cheree couldn't accept that drivers would change their behavior argument for you to make if there's a trial right here's a deposition testimony in the record from their expert from the state trooper saying cross traffic would have made a difference here the load would be shifted and the experts say had there been a warning the road would have been secured differently but it's my opinion so if those are the pieces of evidence how is that beneath how is that outside the realm of rationality for a jury looking at to say you know what we think things would have been different we think we think that accident wouldn't have occurred this way and his wife might have been spear it's dropped according to the model you want to have something goes wrong with one of the straps and it goes forward and the ball doesn't protect the driver in that case is there a obligation on behalf of a trial judge is still supposed to tell the jury that it's it p k and if it wants to draw inferences from the existence of a warning existence of the ruling that people might hate it which seems kind of logical to me but the new jersey appellate division of the superior court says no you give them instruction you have to give that instruction and you have to give better structure because even though the presumption doesn't exist they don't have to assume that the person which he did they came choose to through the the system to the warning would be to something different if they want to  expectations because he never saw things get moving is it and is that knowledge required in order to get your specialized license that you're familiar with  in compliance with that regulation it wouldn't the regulation was the right that is not