violation i think in one thousand nine hundred seventy two and then she said that also would constitute grounds for termination i think from reading about letter from the first paragraph in gates that having an accident while operator roman are accurate and are not that they were part of the arbitrator's decision and go from there your client filed suit against wrong then claiming various  errors having been made by the operator of the the machine and that that proximately result that in one of those errors approximately resulted in ovide three test results so when it gets to the proximate cause issue in the negligence action it seems that each have a prior determination having been made by the arbitrator why  the machines allegedly malfunctioning not doing things they were supposed to do i'm depressed for a issue with me it was really all about the alcohol testing and whether or not it was appropriately done and i'm not really so i believe that the average duration you get into the process and i guess for me the process is similar to how things are down the steps taken but they're not the employees or do it they're supposed to do as far as and then in the discussion alice's section basically goes through the argument about machines not being reliable it doesn't address the points of  boils down to essentially a situation where the plaintiff is saying the city of bloomington should have made a better decision is not really a lawsuit as against roman position management actions of mr reed should not have been deemed regis as opposed to some lesser standard that they should have looked to the issue of is somewhat indicated that in fact they did look at the issue of the actions of the person out there is to some extent the actions of the personnel are drawn into this issue of whether or not the machine operat correctly there was an expert who is the same player an expert would have testified in this case had so many judgment not been allowed the allegations remain the same paid by the of the form for you to take for instance on a house fire that leads to the death of one of the occupants and the insurance policy requires binding arbitration  or property damage line quoted and that would be the cause and origin of the fire and the arbitrator makes a finding in regards to cause and origin and a later wrongful best suit of the family apply to individual components so to answer your question let's assume for the moment that in for whatever reason in the house fire there was a contested issue associated with how on the issue and really have much more ammunition on that issue but because it had been decided on a formal proceeding they're stuck with that finding and regards to and origin same then what apply here as i understand it when we're talking about the proximate cause element here sang the arbitrator made a finding that e p a see results were accurately record reported actually accurately reflected mr reed's blood alcohol concentration and therefore notwithstanding there might be different allegations of negligence in this claim the proximate cause issues previously been adjudicated to go back to our house fire example i'm assuming that there's a total damages i'm not suggesting that one is for a death one is are you blue for me the reconstruction of the house or something of that nature but i do believe that based on the case law that we cite in our  that there is an obligation to make sure this early litigated and things that would which could have been brought should have been brought is an obligation of the party who is seeking to seek as i think the court suggested by some of the questions that were asked of the plaintiffs can there be negligence but it would be in a vacuum or free floating negligence or as we lawyers like to say must to be the proximate cause of something sure i mean you could say and i'm not suggesting that i am saying it but you could say ok on that last that length of blood alcohol test  legit they did not exercise ordinary care in changing that date does it change the outcome of the past of course now it has nothing to do with that that would be an example of if you will free floating negligence that has nothing to do with here what i'm looking at is the issue of you can't get to the proposition that my client's alleged negligence resulted in a bad outcome if there instead i managed to obtain summary judgment on the issue of what was the reason for the dismissal and you've already had introduced  through the plaintiff an indication about the emily bell letter and i would say that if i were sitting in your seat if i were the first paragraph i would say both issues are mentioned in that in that area in the next paragraph however where it says that the issue of the alcohol or alcohol content  are also in violation and then would have also resulted in your terminations now i believe that is relatively clear that emily bell felt that the issue of the accident alone which she described as egregious was adequate for terminations but what made it a creature is that he was treated and on the job right well actually when i asked  the question i know what she said right well and when you consider that he might have the evidence on the thirty eight prior accidents not involving alcohol and no involving a terminations and it just isn't there at least in dispute an argument that alcohol was a prominent factor in the decision to terminate but i'd be lying to you if i said that we're here so obviously there is a dispute however i guess what i would say is emily bell was the decision maker associated with this case and by your comments when we took the deposition i think it's very clear what she would say was that the terminations was by itself adequate by reason of the fact that there was this action and you have asked me well what makes us agree just and how about the very folks i guess my real answer to that is it's not a grown man position measurement perforation a question it's a city movie so you're in the city bloomington had their worst day on record in terms of human relations department action alcohol and roman caused an improper or inaccurate result as far as the testing if that had happened they wouldn't fire him that and that's their hope so i understand it's rather awkward  we wish we had when we didn't hear so we could ask them something but schatz the connection i guess what i'd say is that the primary reason for the taking of the bell deposition least from our standpoint was the attempt to clarify that we think that she did now can you imagine a situation he's only where it's a case that now all would have played on somebodies mind yes i'm not denying that i don't i don't think that would be accurate or truthful but when actually asked what was the basis and we felt the decision maker said that was read basically as far as he knew the issue was alcohol but what he actually says in his deposition is he was asked about whether or not it was a case that he participated in this decision as to whether or not to terminate his answer was no and you can find that at pages eight nine ten eleven of his deposition he says no he was not he was asked about the issue of alcohol he was a gentleman who to decision making he acknowledges that it's a case that he was not there and it was not his decision to make so i really don't think that pointing to mr plant as a basis for making a determination that  the if it was the case that alcohol was involved in the decision making process what is really happening here is what if has not been able to demonstrate that  you can have as much speculation as you might want to have about that issue but the letter is consistent with that the arbitrator's decision is consistent with that