references to the complete record in this case the court's decision was based primarily on the ruling that  trusts and there's three answers to that one this case and it's not clear in the papers by the way but this case a rose in the no six county superior court that's where the deposition was taken the procedure in the middle six county superior court is that the code defendants actually elect somebody to start the deposition and ask the general questions on everyone's behalf and venue for all the questions are not answer last argument indicates i'm not always clear on why you want yours to store you things that are good for you other things and that's not pretending that i have understood it better i just sometimes own goods that for whatever reason additional assess just in any components that also go into those those engines after delivery there's additional parts that go in there there's additional clamps and mr davis is testimony was quite clear about that but there's a mix of different companies in that engine is that is the position point right your argument there's a there's a threshold that you have to get past where a rational jury could find for the plaintiff what you need about that threshold then it's for the jury to decide which inference  it believes doesn't believe what it thinks is the most logical conclusion right now the only thing that's in front of us is was there enough here to get above that a rational jury could look at this a question right so that it take all those things together what is it that's a whacking that would make it irrational for a jury to say here's a guy who's working on the parts he's working on the engines working all the regularly there's a quite different than the new jersey cases we have where there's been sufficient proximate cause sound and in those cases like the patina case if you consider that unpublished decision that's the pizza box case where you have you know over the course of a couple summers twenty five times a day there's undisputed evidence that the plaintiff was opening up the stocks and having a status in a space so in our case theirs were moving from that and it was at also testimony that half of those boxes were made by the defendant question in our case it's probably for number of different reasons first of all there's  testimony on its face it's not at all clear the degree of frequency with which he actually you know looked inside or had any direct contact he wasn't working directly on these engine parts but it doesn't matter that much because it's the nature of the on the seat and chatted if there was sufficient of frequency and if i could move to a second question and that's part of the problem is that we never had an opportunity to ask our own questions at his deposition you know the deposition unfortunately was very painful for everyone it was cut off before we had a chance to go forward and engine that's number one questions that our counsel objected to and there really was not enough information there we would ask follow up questions with respect to trying to understand was a lot of confusion as i read his deposition when he's talking about his contact with different parts of the engine whether he's talking about his work on the brakes which mr cleaver thinks was the cause of his present ileum or whether he's talking about the engine when he's talking about the seals there's really no nothing that i read in this record that shows that we had anything to do with the seals those were provided after  think that's wrong for a couple of reasons you know i think it's well established by this court's cases i'm looking for example united states versus regular at four sixteen after two fifty six it's well established that the prevailing party below and that's district court just simply didn't reach the question of plaintiffs didn't raise in their opening brief they raise it in their reply even if you reach that i think the elements they are not are not met and it takes you smack dab into the question very similar to the question that we have done which impairs trustworthiness as indeed happened when there was a day when things didn't go forward because he was educated people say we can't go forward yeah i mean i think if we're going to look at the age of seven which really hasn't been part of this case trustworthiness i think it brings us right back into the question of the competency this is a very difficult deposition we have a record that's created from day one of the supposition even setting aside the problem with day two that this is a this is a mr possum i was you know in extreme pain he was very ill he's a paranoid schizophrenia he was on a number of different medications and if you read through the deposition the can as i read it it's quite confused in places and so i think if you're but the news would isn't the fact that everybody was there and could and could in fact point out when they thought we've gotten to a point where this is not trustworthy significant because the big did hit that point and they did stop the deposition get way through and tell the medications she could be addressed i mean doesn't that doesn't the actual factual background here and lend more credibility not unless to the trustworthiness because people were on the scene capable of assessing  at one point well i think what they did at the time was preserve that objection that they were worried about the whole thing and i don't think they were due to hitting they didn't call the court there was some discussion about whether they would it different points but nobody's adjudicating at that stage sure but it's the of the testimony that they're putting their objections and which i read you just starting out at deposition to cover the whole thing with there's a there's a problem with you know the very sad circumstance that mr bacile was in that particular point in time and so i think if you're going to look at a question of resorting if i can finish my answer you can look to resorting to this residual exception for this testimony it's in to the sense of being trustworthy and it also throws us back into the problem that we didn't have an opportunity to question it so i'm not sure it does anything in that respect more than the analysis that we have under eight o