that the united states federal government is the largest employer in the united states and perhaps the world on a daily basis they are equipping their employees and agents tens of thousands of them with vehicles that are used throughout the world to effect their duties and their associated activities creates a tremendous risk to the entire public whether they're on the road or purpose of his weeklong trip to find out whether or not he was interested in relocating to the mojave desert a remote location where the navy is having a difficult time staffing that particular be within the course the scope of of employment and so mr liberty or is yes he's on his way to nevada but actually the acid and doesn't even happen in the vatican it happens in the very area of his primary focus which was to really look at this china lake basically wanted to see that and so it's your relevant were intended to go or that he was even going there the accident happened in the very area where he was going to be traveling and in any event that was the primary area of his travel and so you have the girlfriend in the car as well well that's entirely forseeable doesn't matter that he's a she's a girlfriend or what her status is she could she might as well have been a pedestrian she could have been in another no relationship but even if she's a passenger it's for steerable that he would have at some point during this week long trip somebody in his car either from the station or a military personnel perhaps a relative a visiting something like that it's entirely foreseeable that he would have somebody in the car and they would be exposed to the same risk as all the other public people on the highway and so really i think what this comes down to is again the duis is what the government is focusing on and there's cases say just because your d why does not take you out of course in school employment and a great example is unfortunately the exxon valdez if the captain  hawaii because he had some wild whim instead of going through his destination in california or wherever it was that was going to deliver the oil let's say he intended to go to home why that doesn't matter he would still have in the course and he could have had his girlfriend at his side at the helm at the time the ship ran aground exxon would still be vicariously liable for that accident and so this case is even closer within the course of course and scope of employment because again areas in their brief regarding the jurisdictional issue there's a number of cases that say even though this is governed by california law that the f t c is a matter of federal question it doesn't matter that  decided by case are excuse me by california state law we are going to address that still as a federal question and there supreme court authority on those points i can supply those cases the other point is with respect to the criteria for determining pretty there are a number of factors but it really boils down to that last factor nationwide had no control over any of the lead against in the underlying case and so again this case points up the strong public policy of vicarious liability the united states is the largest employer they create the most risk to the public by virtue of the volume of cars they put on the road and i would  warning catatonic united states of china i represent the united states it's my brief obviously has three points in three reasons why i think the appeal should be denied but i'd like to first address the points that were raised appellant just now in court essentially what your palate is urging is strict liability for the united states when its employees are driving anywhere that's the upshot of what he's arguing he essentially said that if mr libby trial wanted to go to disneyland that that trip would have been within the scope of his employment for the military because he was coming out to california i don't think an examination of california law are as broad as it is is anywhere near that broad he brought up the mary m case which is a case concerning police officers that's a special situation that california has carved out for people in that situation for police officers and one of the reasons is because even though he raped a woman he was still acting as a police officer at that time mr limit or was not acting as a military person at the time that he committed this act the standard is was the in the line of duty for military persons in california for scope and clearly he was not in the line of duty as for he would have been on this road anyway argument actually on the map he wouldn't have been on highway fifty eight he would have taken fourteen straight up from los angeles to china lake you don't go on fifty eight unless you're going to state line of atta therefore i don't think that under the case law which is cited and discussed a lot in the breeze that i think i need to bring it up again if you have any specific questions you want me to point to i'll be happy to discuss them but otherwise i think that the cases speak for themselves the court knows it's clear that that is not a basis for jurisdiction in his papers the opponent also brings up diversity which as we know since the united states is the party there is no diversity has been out of the case of course there there would have been diversity but we were in the case act nationwide would not have had a right to sue the united states independently under the federal tort claims act we didn't commit it's court against nationwide therefore i don't think that there's a basis for subject ma want that judgment of the district court to be upheld in its entirety i think it was a good judgment i think it's called the law and that's what i think should happen and i also was lateralus up argument that i don't need to make it if it's not going