and the court told the jury that the award of geologists not necessary one of those parties was found that you feel if you're the court told the jury to follow the instructions he didn't indicate anything else but the follow the instructions destruction said in this case that argument with regard to a seeking a new trial hypothesis is absolutely reconciled with the other right that's what you're saying well correct because there's no possible hot issue here there's your giving as long as it won't agree to that incident involving the motorcycle in the car or resulted in that selfie doesn't make me says because it doesn't have to buy that finish a compromise for it doesn't make any sense that's not really true and moreover this isn't inconsistent perjury because the jury was not just charged with trying to figure out whether there is why the ability and whether there's damages but whether the liability is the proximate i think that's a fair statement and in closing argument i've read your argument several times three times you told the jury if you find for my client you work for c that's right that's right  answered the question you know yes or we couldn't answer the question yes you could have we could have answered either way we didn't get to that because we did believe that the jury instructions were told them what to do both is more important it's not just one ira and whether they should because that is what i was asking of the jury the with the standard is for purposes of applying to this case is whether as a as justice hudson suggested withers is absolutely a reconcilable that can stand and was ample evidence to damages that were presented that were objective and then so in this particular case there was ample evidence to support that the jury it was clear by their question that they intended to award new damages they did not state the estimation two hundred feet behind me was on the ground in an area that and more than furthermore there was also evidence by our reconstruction expert that testified to show b who who suggested that had he not taken brought the vehicle down to the factors that as judge shooter suggested in the post from ocean those are all factors that say there is no confusion here the plan to fail an issue approximate cost and the trial judges in the best position here to make that determination that the judge you heard the that that this is that this verdict is not to use the same to the court is not legally inconsistent unless it is absolutely irreconcilable a verdict is not irreconcilable inconsistent anything any reasonable hypothesis supports the verdict this is just a question of who are inconsistent verdict where somebody who knows the surgical procedure and there were medical bills who were no pain suffering which is clearly evidence of a painful listen how the question would have been answered the question or been no it didn't happen that the confusion isn't what i said or didn't say i suggest respectfully to the court or the confusion has to do with the fact that we didn't answer the question directly to look good the entire record to whether or not the jury was confused that's correct and by virtue of the question itself that the jury polls anticipated they  that they feel in process because because of the the end of the evidence of liability testimony from an expert that talked about had this personality his bicycle onto the pavement that he was stopping and further behind than where it did where the discretion the judge is in the best position trial just in the best position to determine the evidence the trial is in the best position to to interpret what the jury did hear and i think those are the circumstances in the very high standard that the player has to overcome  i think it's appropriate