that each side will have approximately twenty minutes now scott being mr butler some of the issues are overlapping is there any kind of if you talked about procedure then ride the introduction of certain evidence instructions substantially prejudiced the defendant require a new trial and lastly ride the award of damages on the last consortium a claim it was clearly jury instructions about the time in the place if you look at the twenty one or the twenty or one instruction which the court in snyder said that's what we're supposed to look at to define these collective terms like conduct or actions or driving conduct there's all sorts of  what about the jury's verdict that there was a contributory negligence to the term i think it was twelve percent correct doesn't that indicate that even had you gotten the jury instruction written the way you wanted and submitted to the jury that they would not have agreed with it have let me hold you for one second when i go back to this finding the jury me on contributory negligence i asked about before you said snyder said we can't do that i understand that side or in other cases talk about the fact that the specific you know contributed to this injury didn't use the word proximate cause i think it said proximately contributed maybe we can argue about whether that's a distinction that matters but the jury actually did take all this into account and said we think that he was only responsible twelve case at least probably more relevant to y c that your client was there's a specific reason we took this cap because we thought it was a yellow cab and since he couldn't remember actually making that decision at that point in time they were trying to prove it another on the basis of conduct that is mandated by statute or cold every single fact every single argument that was made in opposition to our appeal and it was made the shall be substituted all right so here position is if the emblem is required yes and in fact but to the to the rule to the regs require i mean obviously the regs did not bottom of the logo was in fact designed to entice four to give the impression that this is a particular type of pen company and what with the cool requires that plaintiff's theory here that you were that y c was strategic clever manipulative use good words or bad words but they were they were they knew what they were doing when they chose a level they knew that well that was good that they would be able to say we have to put yankee i instructions you're saying don't have any reference to anywhere else in the i p s no two to use you know that saying that what i was saying is that there is no general parent and a single structure and that provision refers to one all five point one all and the supreme court calls for all five point one all made clear and the case makes clear that this is limited to the medical malpractise hospital situation to the instructions that amounted to this in the comments simply refers you to their saying see doesn't say you're supposed to use it one way or the other and the comments the supreme court knows that i won or five point one zero make clear that  to go off on their sort of theory now to try to almost all of us about the core requirements on which we think is a formal probably already commented on that yes the problem here is this is a station with no no meaning under the  by this its position that they were somehow handcuffed by this ordinance and their conduct was involuntary in this case the jury in this case are overwhelming evidence of the voluntary conduct of yellow ca statutory sections couldn't there have been did they renewed their objection at the time of instructions and they asked that the court op provide the steps story directives for purposes of even just argue the city ordinance it is our chargers they created the appearance yellow cab with that failing winged emblem that citizens and customers like mark jacobs relied upon for good safe service and that was going to occur with or without that ordinance and have been going on here in the city chicago for years and this apparent agency or can a parent agency ever be defeated by what occurs subsequent to entering into the camp so once you get inside the that those things even the emblem or something that have to be on yeah pursuant to section i never made so that they could argue that they weren't an apparent age meant this was basic information that was on the side of the cab or resin bumper to bumper regulation of how they operated the businesses they suggest and there was overwhelming evidence of yellow cabs for listener first there was the is they would not have been in any way but their decision would have been the same in this case because there was overwhelming evidence of yellow cabs illusional conduct in creating a brand in creating an insignia that was i some of the conduct i'd be after well ok i was required by long not all that the jury could have easily found based on the evidence we put in certainly on the radio training in and of itself but that was wice you rise or fall a parent agency and you make the argument that the bill of their own volition to use a certain yellow color of their own volition used a certain logo of their own volition put it that phone number on the side of this was all their decision i think what they're saying is the jury only got to hear your side of the argument they beat they have an argument that says ok yeah we did that i don't think that did y c i didn't see a place where my seat denied any of those things but they say but when properly ruled that bringing the ordinance and of this case bringing in to read the operators employees of yellow cab save your evidence requires them to do and not to do would be a trial within a trial the case is about notion of voluntary obama tional condom and again we had being able to present what they believe what it was because no congress but the human being precluded from offering anything in recognize that the committee is set up a plaintiff lawyers defense lawyers and judges who bring their collective thoughts in developing instructions are not based think a strong or that parents case law but are actually conversational and easy to understand in supreme rules of the period agency taking from case law of the state if you go back to your banner through the cases that recently came down from the first district you will find those three points of apparent agency in all those cases but there's no case in the whether they quote that car with the authorities and maybe by extension the driver of the car yes that's exactly what we're saying and this language again here is one of five town out of the medical context it would be no different than  right and natural i p i instruction was good but later found to be earlier there was a medical malpractise case there was a judgment against the hospital and that particular case jobs just a story by properly emphasized that all the instructions must be read see a passenger and also be a person on the street appears not liable to be the pastor of the street but if found that the passenger relied upon the tennis academy as one for some safe drivers pete is subject to said he said the jury had the two things that the defense was claiming and i think the twenty one instruction he said had made i've not seen i've not reviewed that record but his his contention is that they knew exactly what the defense was saying they knew exactly what two things they different sections to that opinion section eight in but it was actually to see in the context of the ordinance section b was actually agency in the context of a classical analysis a factor sufficient to raise a question intended to preempt agency in the context of the ordinance they never would have gone into part beat a bad opinion which i submit to this court is the modest part of the opinion by at least six hundred words and if the again the city did that and that's why the first very regulation changes something because it shows the city want to make clear ca was held liable for conduct compliant with the cold but if you disagree with that we respectfully disagree and the mom should be entitled to present a defense to the jury with all the facts and with