question of process with regard to duty are submitted construction of or six dealt with the knowledge component of duty in a duty to warn case such as this there is presented other of another and really negligence theory under the mckinney case decided the th district there must be a knowledge component before the defendant can be found liable that component was completely missing from the jury instructions in this shows as it is are ready to try this case on the substantial factor theory and you could find that mission it the players prefer page twenty seven plaintiffs specific causation expert dr abraham testified to using the middle and others just in case events was also that insulation products release fire is a much higher level and much higher potency and that he was exposed to those it much much more frequently at a higher level that that was the sole introduced to the jury to allow them to decide whether or not that particular defendant's product was the cause of of the player's illness i submit to you that ip i one thousand five hundred and one was incorrect or at least insufficient in this  have been given that j c a submitted that accurately reflected the law as set forth by the supreme court thacker and no one in the trial court essentially had the kid its duty to help the parties come up with accurate sure instruction to submit to the jury by saying simply the i p o s are with the r that is not what's true or is is responsible for doing needs to present under rule two hundred and thirty nine jury instructions that accurate propensity of the product to cause harm before duty to harm arises because it was based on the supreme court's decision would overseas per davis which held that it's the defendant must have knowledge that approach is dangerous customers and the dangers associated with process that is used in the manufacturing facility where we're joined pre made its products none of the evidence related to in the field use of these products such as j c i would have known at that time during mr oros exposure period that its products could cause disease or that the industry in general knew that a specialist packing could cause disease phrase state of the art was used no less than forty times during the trial this case j c i submitted a jury instruction which tracked what is what comes from a can in terms of what state of the earth means the consequences with regard to knowledge of the defendant knowledge component for a duty to feel your prejudice was also because the jury was left without any guidance on how to evaluate the evidence and heard of budgets yes lack of knowledge about the dangers posed by its products and the expert testimony that followed the record is replete with references to what you say they knew or didn't know what to say should have known what the industry knew or didn't know in general but the jury was left with no  morning honors in a place the court i'd like to use my time today to answer any questions the court has and respond to a few issues that have been raised by defense counsel in argument today and i would like to begin with the substantial is capable of a couple of different meanings to a couple of different definitions as it's used not in the law but just among people one of them is something that's material that's how we use it in the law that the other is has to do with quantity at that it  a great amount we argued this in our brief and as the st fonts in the reply brief dependent says we don't have any basis for making such a distinction i would like to point out to the court a couple of cases where the same the same decision has been factor in the jury instructions and the court reasoned precisely as we have reason in our brief before this court that webster's international dictionary knows that there are two definitions for the word substantial one means not imaginary or  elusive and the court in arizona said if that if we could be confident that all of the jurors would understand the word substantial in that meaning it would be one thing but there is another definition for the word substantial and its abundan considerable amount commonly we speak in terms of a substantial amount as for instance a substantial meal or a substantial income and if this is the meaning that's attributed to the word the instruction is  instance a teacher were to say to a group of students the finding the final exam that will be a fact but a substantial factor of your grade and then it turned out that the final exam was only worth three percent of the grade a student would feel that he had been it would have been misleading and it would have been reversible error to give that instruction a move on to instruction number six an instruction number six that the defendant proposed to instruct  that knowledge is existed in the industry of the dangerous propensity because this is a negligence case and we were obligated to show what the defendant knew or should have known that the defendant exercise for mary care and this puts the focus on what the what the industry knew we we didn't have to prove what the industry as a whole new we just have to show the defendant did not exercise care the defendant brings up  any decision our cases so unlike the make a decision that it doesn't apply in the kidney the the the plaintiff worked and was exposed to the defendant's product for a period of seven months for seven months and then over the course of his forty year career he worked with breaks that ha plaintiff in this case worked with defendants products he testified that he worked with them throughout his career as a part of the there was evidence in our case of how the products the asbestos products were were were were how how rather worked at them he cut than he used to sander and then he grind them these are all things that produced asbestos does in the make any case there was insufficient evidence of a manner of using the asbestos products that would produce dust the most that could be said in that case is that when the welding rod stewart jostled about in the box that could produce us that's just us or when they fell on the floor that could produce asbestos dust so there are big differences there too in addition using the weight dependant has used mckenney and its argument is improper defendant quoted from the bikini decision saying it must be established that knowledge existed in the industry of the dangerous propensity of manufactures or you could also show what was known in the industry and so the instruction that defendant wanted to give instruction number six would have been misleading to the jury because it would have put the emphasis is on is incorrect yes it's  and i will move on to have the question of good faith findings i have a few more minutes i wanted to follow up on justice fairness on the question you asked about ready even if ready does not stand for the proposition that settling defendants should not be on the jury verdict form even if it's an error even if it means only settling defendants who have a good faith finding there is still no reason for any other defendant to have been put on the jury verdict form in this case and that's because the defendant in this case did not have a contribution a claim for contribution against any other defendant now defendant has argued that it had a team to claim and that was under the standing order for us that's just cases and could count by a standing order for aspect this case in cook county lays out some requirements for maintaining a counter claim and defendant didn't abide by those the standing order says that the assigned trial judge such over acquire the remaining defendants to identify the counter defendant subject to counter claims and pay the filing fee for a counter claim prior to commencement of jury selection in a particular case and against other defendants in a case are deemed filed as of the date of entry of the defendants or parents by each defendant remaining at trial against each other defendant remaining in the case remaining in the case as of the time of jury instructions six of the defendants who had settled about him defended is complained before this court they were no longer in the case they'd already been dismissed including general electric i'd like to point out to this court it was  two defendants who are remaining in the case at the time this case went to trial that's westinghouse and metropolitan life westinghouse got an order of good faith finding from the court metropolitan life the defendant did not ask to have metropolitan life put on and really couldn't tell because there wasn't any evidence that was put to the jury about metropolitan life i see them quickly running out of time i think i would ask that because i'm sor because of the lack of instruction and with regard to instruction number six just remind you there's only one thing you take away from this a negligent duty to warn his requires that congress established that the defendant had knowledge or should have  approve of what the defendant knew agree with that or what it should've known based on what was known in the industry it's known as state of the ark there was jury was left with nothing no instruction on this whatsoever it didn't know what to do with the forty times it was to during the course of the trial it was left to do nothing with how often it was told she did know or didn't know something and again from from from from from the supreme court precedent object this is aid to the defendant any