apparently that the not providing the glasses or the out of that were available in the floor hockey equipment was sufficient and that wasn't her just that wasn't a role to take she can't analyze the evidence you can't this is the way the credibility so we had to in order to provide really have to have evidence that they were god was available that she could have chosen to make the kids use them and she didn't and that she knew that there was a risk of not using them and we had the evidence to support all take precautions for their students safety and how do you reconcile that with lynch and poker which say if a school district and its teachers or  personnel personnel take some precautions and they don't do everything that they possibly could to prevent injury it's not will fall in line i don't think that rich seeking that all precautions have to be taken all known precautions should be taken for example in the cam lap if the chemistry teacher has the safety goggles available when they're doing experiments that could explode and they may never have exploded for that teacher and i may have never explored it in that school district before but the kno risk is there you had the safety equipment available there's absolutely no reason why the teachers shouldn't be required to use it and to consciously disregard that risk something that they could easily prevent by using the available goggles it's so ho extensive that is that we protect the kids and we protect the people that are there so again what is the distinction between negligence that is taking every possible caution and willful mind but what if what distinction is there i think that with negligence it's you know thinking about and it's now black and white it's not concrete it's us and she can pick up and give to the kids see in this case it you know where the teachers are that's why does she if she said hey do anything you want i'm sticking checking this is hockey that sounds like well for me absolutely bad you're saying if she didn't do they add that would be ok i think that the key difference here is that the school district at some point purchased these goggles for purposes of floor hockey to prevent eye injury she had there with the hockey equipment just like they bought the plastic stakes as opposed to the wooden sticks and one of the teachers testified that they had little hockey balls that were more dangerous that hanley than the safety balls and that the teachers were not allowed to use those old balls that they happen to come across one and so that to me would be welcome one conduct is rob because you have the correct equipment the at trial saying that i say regulations require the use of protective equipment no helmets no peds no equipment and the courts supreme courts as a matter of form one i think the distinction for the wench is that first there was an extracurricular activity and the coach had told them i recommend that you guys get you know mouth braces i recommend that you get some of this equipment but the to participate wasn't incumbent on the kids and parents following their instructions it was just a recommendation and in gym class there's no choice the kids have to go to gym class they have to participate in activities and they have to follow of the teacher's instructions and there's not a kid in this world that's going to go get safety goggles on his own if the other kids in the class aren't using them and so it's one teacher to say ok my twelve kids who are playing flappy go get the goggles and they're all play and they all do their thing is that they were getting rid of some evidence standard they were getting rid of the newer centaur argument they were getting rid of the any evidence argument by saying if there's some evidence said doesn't necessarily mean that it's allowed despite what you say i think the trial judge is allowed to a certain extent to weigh what is in front of the court and decide whether or not it should go to the jury actually that's in conflict though with the way that a directed verdict is supposed to be  that level but it was litigated for years it went through motions to dismiss it went through motions for summary judgment it went through an entire trial and it really wasn't the trial judge just place to take that decision away especially an issue from one kind act because we met this week there was never a game it was never it from the beginning it was about the goggles and so we met the burden of proof on the goggles and so just because that's not sufficient to her  women and whatever you know you're allowed to put the entire case sign in front of the jury and then at the end the judge was in a situation where she had to you know rule on a motion for directed verdict and in reading you know  the record here it seems that she did not find that there was enough evidence of well formed right and even though there was some evidence that there was something that needed could have been done maybe should have been done that could have prevented the injury i think that's what she was doing and granting the motion that and well that's just the way it seems to me and this may feel like that's that's that was the problem is that wasn't her place to do it so we had to meet the bring the meter issues even though there were gardeners and then this happened to this child that would be something different that would hear some substance that the other a that that allegation that you wanted to go to the jury simply didn't have i mean but then you're going towards sort of like that one bite rule life something bad has to happen first in order for someone else to recover for an injury in the foreseeability is there she testified that the balls go up sticks go up it's best case game she testified right and there is no question that she did not require them that there's also no question that she'll know the students to fool around with them and make fun of them apparently and she didn't think it was she didn't stop there you know were god's presence there was extremely new evidence the evidence was going disputed that there were no prior injuries really good kind involving four hockey but certainly no significant injuries nothing like what happened what about to the point for example of the chemistry lab where everybody's provided goggles and maybe nobody's been injured before but the reason the goggles are purchased is movie argument but there is no mean deal for law there is no high h s c rule there's no rule at all anywhere that says you must use these types of goggles when you're when you're playing floor hockey in particular with the equipment that was being use five kids in her class and that's where she's balancing competing interests in terms of resources manpower equipments time and the most nurit cities in india to set the kids like this supposed everybody coming in the room going through a and the coach is talking to somebody and so he comes up to talk to the slips in the grid before we can stop him and never said we're going effectiveness to sniff sure a course of action demonstrating utter indifference or conscious disregard in the course of action language is what's really important for every teacher every school every school board every physical education department head has wait until there's been an injury to say ok we're not gonna let that happen again i don't think that that's what the steward is about what i   plane it happened bar chose me you know move there was a danger what difference and he's fifteen so what we've got a teacher who's an adult in the world so isn't the responsibility hers always to figure out you know if there's a and hit someone in the face in the eyes or in the face and i know that these are kids and they're not i was going to be really careful and i know i've got thirty other kids i've got to be treated he's been tracked i've been i can't watch him every single second oh and i know kids conscious disregard for the safety of others or she made a conscious decision to let other kids in other places school friend with that made them look even sillier than they were at the recent testimony about kids mocking  not one that they were very concerned about but they had much more problems with basketball or softball with kids written your fingers trying to catch the ball but you know a little during a basketball game those are all things that can hear been there isn't any inherent that maybe that would be negligence if if that's how someone feels but it's certainly not willful and wanton conduct not with the evidence in this case on them and their special situation which talks about the fact that you m kids together who were in different weight classes if you will and that's one of the one of the rules of regular wrestling but you put it in the gym class but it also took all these other precautions and what the court said there was this is the antithesis of w exercise discretion in deciding whether to run a new ending the use of these battles or not it's not a ministerial act because there is no mandate of the wall but the would be in a in a science classroom or a chemistry lab that mandates the use of a safety goggles and she's made about a policy determination in the balancing of competing interests she's got the fight since she wants to keep the dumb those kids active and interested in engaging in the physical education curriculum and the way to do that is to every other thing every other safety precaution that she had put into place and with the idea that if you meet these goggles maybe no one's going to play for hockey and it's going to make it that the heart rate they may be on a less appealing day for these kids and then it would be otherwise to make a decision and conscious decision to say i'm not going to be indeed i'm the first these other words but i'm not going to do this particular thing and so i think this conscious decision policy determination all of those things apply when we're talking about discretionary nudity but what it doesn't do is price to the level of a course of action which shows a conscious disregard for the safety she was conscious of disregarding safety she was paying attention the intensity of the the activity they're going to be engaged in and evaluated the equipment evaluated the space and evaluated everything here and knowing all those things i don't think those goggles are certainly if you're right ahead but i'm not  hurt and so that was found to be willful and wanton conduct and didn't matter that he had done some of those other things because on that day in that time he did it and so it did it was there was a way on us all based pacific risk i mean obviously using the table saw on metal carries with it the risk that charges are going to fly is they have an analogy as to what we're talking about here for hockey with modified equipment and safety using a hammer but you do for certain other things just like with for hockey use goggles that maybe not basketball and so i think there is no prior injury that had happened in order for the teacher to be held responsible for well one kind of another he wanted to make was with tyler in that case the teacher has to done all the safety rules that he could for wrestling and the cause of the injury was because one of the kids made an illegal move and like threw the kid down and injure him and that was against the rules in this case both of the kids who were playing hockey who when the bop that they were both playing right they weren't high sticking they weren't breaking any of the rules they went for the  it popped up and hit him in the eye and so everybody abiding by her safety rules still got hit in the eye and that indeed would have been prevented with the use of the goggles and that's why it's well fine line conduct because that directly could have been prevented and you know mr cujo made a reference to it in softball we can't prevent this you can get albert in basketball and all these things absolutely but getting out there in four hockey we wouldn't be here he got hurt in the eye and there was equipment there to prevent that direct injury in softball if they don't have the shin guards available then they are going to be held responsible for a cleat in the in the shin or if they're playing soccer we're not asking the school boy to go above and beyond what they've already done the school board took the money that they have and they allotted some money for goggles for floor hockey that's a big deal for a school district a lot of money for things and she didn't use that safety come in that was available and would have prevented this injury and and then with respect to he made the point that reasonable people might disagree you know maybe you would have done differently maybe we would have chosen to use the goggles that's what makes it a question of fact the jury did that rice the level of welcome one hundred was that a conscious disregard for the safety knowing these all these facts that are involved it's such a highly factual question and it wasn't just shelley's role to resolve those conflicts in evidence and to weigh the credibility or the give weight to the different pieces of evidence we had the evidence there to support a burden