statutory scheme includes intentional or criminal this contest in other words whether intentional misconduct can be compared to the next conduct of the second question is the effect in the where a party is under a duty to protect someone else from the possibility of criminal conduct five third party in other words their specific obligation is to protect the plaintiff from the enforce a mandatory family abuse protection order and as a result the person who was protected by the order was was assaulted by someone who was committed a criminal act so in all of these time that it would have the effect of creating a new defense and you can see that it works in this specific case because although the defendant argue because in the version we have now respective and i realize it's of the skewed scale but your client was found four times more responsible than the plane given yet the plenty of winds up holding ninety six percent of the b neither result is very satisfying you're right about it that there's plainly two competing policies the legislature could have just one would be the policy of the plaintiff and the case which is that we should ensure recovery by the plaintiff and let the defendant third party defendants sort out between themselves and if if the liability is unfairly apportioned to the restaurant but the restaurant bear that burden has a right a contribution over against a third party if they can't collect so did the other policy choice is that tort liability in oregon shelter only be imposed in proportion to your actual wrongdoing it literally these are t opposite policy choices for a long time in oregon the policy choice was plaintiff recovers defendant if you get stuck with more than your fair share you have a right of contribution or yesterday so let's take your change there in the ninety's in change that forward you have the state of the argument offered up by plaintiffs with that we have two different kinds of wrongdoing involved here that your client's not being held culpable in the same fashion as being the third party in the fight but is held culpable in a different theory that is that it was the the restaurant and bar responsibility to try to protect against fights generally and so that the measure here which and emphasis all wrong doers in the same pot doesn't produce the right measure that the measure should be done separately for the different kinds of of liability or wrongdoing theories that's my response me that's a great argument to talk to rec representative or state senator about and that in this context otherwise you have the chamar act and negligent party being burdened with the intentional wrongdoing of mr aris the government much more culpable party whereas if mr rhys were only negligent there's no dispute but what he the whole intentional aspect of this first we decide what portion of the wrongdoing is attributable to the intentional acts if that's fifty percent al goes away and then you have an unfortunate among the negligent parties of what's left so a the restaurant to be partially fall what would they have done a fat other ninety five percent had been a straight up plaintiff versus restaurant we don't know and you can't assume that it would have been plain of one percent of restaurant ninety nine factors assigned to these two parties and throw out the other ninety five percent i don't think so without just outright speculating what they what they might have done for these reasons we ask that you further just let me ask answer any more questions gives the prevailing understanding of that word under oregon law which flipped and pointed out that it's either result is not very satisfying intellectually there are problems with either way that we approach this but i would suggest a couple of things about that one the the method of determining those that we're proposing to the court is very consistent with oregon law both on the substance of this cause of action and on the meaning of the statute for the reasons i've already talked about and the argument that's made by the defense is really in a sense an argument for abolition of that cause of action just dressed in different in different clothes the other thing about this is