the case is about the appellant whose left arm was severed when a twenty eight foot farm despite being told by another defendant chase nolan came in contact with person that handled this transaction for the farmer neither of whom in their depositions considered this to be a serious warning their depositions the salesman buoy compton who's one of his that has depositions in the record it mid that he did not warn no one the farmer he did not  farmer which they claim he was an experienced professional farmer knew we will have to tow this piece of equipment cipher there's no there's nothing in the record as to how they knew that he was an experienced professional farmer other than his testimony in his deposition that he had been foreman for some fifteen or twenty years and i guess in their mind that made them take the position  that he was an experienced professional farmer nolan's deposition testimony stated that he did not see the warnings he was not told of the warnings he had never hauled in this particular type of dish before he picked it up the day from the  lease business and did did not know for restless if you look at the warning and it's very explicit language that it was to big this equipment was to be towed only an agricultural tractor he arrived at a diff at the athletes place of business with a pickup truck he connected the equipment to the pickup truck and he left it and with the testified in his deposition that that farmers do it all the time so that must make it right the point i'm trying to make is force these warnings are concerned the completely was oblivious to on they didn't consider him serious going back to answer your original question yes the appellant thinks they are adequate and had they been follow there's a good chance that this this horrible injury would never occur another example of that warning is the total weight of the unit being towed is not to exceed one and a half times  weight of what of the of the tractor and in the brief as pointed out that the the the form dissuade thirteen thousand three hundred from odd pounds way from twenty eight thousand to thirty five thousand pounds that the pick up truck being used less that weighed into were from fifty three to sixty three hundred excuse me fifty seven to sixty three hundred pounds in direct violation that warning now and i pointed out in the brief i think you had a situation rather than the dog wagging the tail the tail wagging the dog the equipment weighed almost twice or more than twice  transport things safely yonder they just didn't believe it they just did not think that way they they were not concerned with the warnings they knew the warners existed and to be perfectly honest with the court in question into taking a deposition of no one i determined that he was not the experienced professional farmer you know we're all a creature of manual nor told about it and he just proceeded to do what he'd been doing for years as far as they help him hook it up or something or how did it how did it get hooked to the so what if the sales person is helping hook it up then why are we here about the warning instead of the fact that the sales person knows that it's being done incorrectly and allows the  a key issue in this case was was on the day of the accident which which vehicle or or apparatus crosses sunrise and he he said that finding that the the warnings in the weight of the equipment which is obvious when you look at the warnings in the weight of the equipment that we're talking about a control issue what would control that piece of equipment on the road would  that's what they say that's all they ever say they take the position that this is course is easy to take it after the little court route that this was of who fault was or that the day of the accident was at least four and a half feet wider than the lane of traffic it was being towed could couldn't does the shoulder come into play often times it does did it on this day we don't know but the d itself is what came in contact with my client pick up truck and it would down the edge of it there is a very short disc his arm happened to be on the wonder seal and when it got to that point on the pickup truck wife should be sent back you know question i think we have your argument counsel thank you a place court mike baxter for a p t i i'm going to answer these questions have been posed i want to just make it clear for the record other two points two key points that i want to focus on and that is the adequacy of the warning of the warning that was given a whether mr phone just presented the district court with enough evidence to go forward on the issue of proximate cause even all these all this issue about the warning a sad so the question is what was the very warning and i think what one of your honors asked says that safety signs are placed on your employment as a guide for your safety now there is no law in louisiana and the law in mississippi that prohibits and says you will be fine and you'll be sentenced to jail if you go and hook up a pickup truck to this particular disc in fact if that was the case why would they allow why would they put a hitch that could be hooked to a pickup truck the farmers did that all the time the movie had no right to tell this man you can't do that it there's no law against it now there is there was a warning and the very warning that the plaintiff mr fun just claims that p t guy should have given to the former was given by the manufacturer did he make the argument in the trial court that you all should lose because the sales person hooked up the did he did not he did not make that argument that was never made to the district or was there evidence that that is negligence not even there in that book and i'm a warnings gossett there and read it my wife on the other hand says listen just get going ok put this on together so if there's a warning in that book and i don't read it and i give her something that was specifically warned against and that's  sir we're can't let you take this thing because you're not competent you know this is this is not i may not be against the law but if the warning says on its face two parts of the warning would be does do that but again the farmers this is not a guy like me or respect to yawn or somebody like that's not in the form of these sophisticated users mr nolan testified that he had toed this particular disc many many times this guy had more experience you could say arguably i think compton our guy because he had known and had more experience than our guys in terms of farming and they were lifelong friends they knew one another so and that testimony is the disk was picked up two days before the accident ok nolan comes in hooks up the disc and he drives a very short distance to his former louisiana that's where we were told he was go ok we had no idea petey i had no idea this mail was going to another state with effect was one that the manufacturer specifically ordered and the manufacturer specifically warned now the fact that nolan ignored the warning that's not on p t i we can't compel this may we can't compel the farmers to come in for a public reading of the of the operator's manual or get a nice try also in light of lighter fluid or whatever that's the argument that i heard from your counsel opposite even if you didn't make it adequately in the trial court what about that argument that what i'm sorry i misunderstood your opposing counsel saying well the salesman buoy or whoever is helping em hitch it out contra the warning that you're proud  so then how can you say that they have no responsibility that's the argument well because we can't force these guys to hook up to a tractor there's nothing there's no law that requires that secondly and most  stop smoking but i can not like the cigarette for you i mean that's the argument here so whether he could go off and hook up discs just to truxton all of that is separate from the question of whether your salesman is hooking up the disc that was the point that was raised and i'm trying to understand it because i don't really remember it being a focus of the briefing so i'm willing to understand that argument and i mind understand your response to it my response to it is that  the warnings tell me and the person to the ha when ag tractor only that's for your safety as a guy it's not a requirement the the real world practice for these farmers is they come in all the time with tractors and trucks ok you're not supposed to smoke when you go up to you court would guess i've seen people do it all the time they never get hurt sometimes people do but the point is was ismay and ward did he know and if the law says to to rule in the favor of the plaintiff in this warning issue i submit the court would have to place a higher standard in burden of care own innocent sellers than what the law presently requires i mean under mississippi product liability law where allowing innocent sellers to be indemnified and there's no cases that have been cited that would require a seller to come up with more more explanations or more warnings or better warnings or  different warnings since what the product manufacturer itself did so as a matter of law council admitted in it's true that he did not dispute the adequacy of the warning the specific warning that he's complaining about was specifically giving so that's the end of the story on the warning issue let me talk about proximate cause and the disconnect between i understand the course concerned about will but mr bush was there i think mr bush he did was he spotted i understand the court's concern about that but let me tell you where that is becomes irrelevant and that's on the proximate cause issue and under mississippi law the failure to warn has to be the proximate cause of the injuries and the plaintive has no causation theory here it's in the record in the courts district court memorandum opinion the district judge asked the point of what is your theory what is your case and he admitted counsel did that he occurred had mr nolan been driving a tractor rather than a traitor it again is a is a complete speculation because you could certainly lose control you could certainly let the disk drift in a tractor as easily as a truck and you know what they would have a case possibly a case had these admissions not been made head to head counsel said wow i've got an expert witness who will say that this truck was overpower load he lost his brakes the skiri went out nothing he admitted to that he has nothing nothing on the proximate cause issue in mr funny or simple testified he said i got no problem we asked him did you have a problem with the vehicle dangerous why did he have an axe the day he left our property with this this it has to do with how you drive and you can lose you can cross in atlanta with any kind of vehicle and that's the problem that they got when he admits that he has no proof it's lawyer speculation unsubstantiated assertions and the district court properly hailed that that's not a basis to go forward so there's two problems here regardless of what you think about what mr booie should or shouldn't do you get back to an element of the plaintiff's case which is proof that is sufficient to submit it to the jury only element of proximate cause and he's got nothing and he admitted that and so for that reason we're asking the court to up affirm the t there's not much of a record in this case this deposition motions and there's nothing in a record that indicates that peter gave any warning at all in fact just the opposite who was one of the owners of the comer testify that it was important for his customers to know the safety rules before leaving his property with the equipment what do you do with them getting to the proximate cause issue what do you do with the argument that this things going to be as wide as it is whether it's hooked up to an ag tractor or anything else and if you cross the line with it it's going to hit in and sadly damage somebody like mr punch a contro you're o has a lot more control over that this than a fifty five or if you're crossing the line the control isn't the issue it's the crossing the line with this big wide thing let me put it this way what evidence in the record is it that the thing over in some crazy way and it wasn't a matter of crossing the line it was a matter that the disc itself kind of got out of control it happened so quickly on or there's nothing in the record that explains that one where the oh ok well that's a problem isn't it you have a burden of proof it is a problem however that we're you know the explicit wording of this warning that was never given to no one by his own admission and by the way no one testified that he known that you shouldn't  knowledge had he been warned would things have been different that's for sure to decide well not if there's no evidence there would have been evidence i mean that there were witnesses that didn't i mean ok but i mean here understand we're an appellate court we have to play the hand we're given which is the record that was created in the district court if you haven't had time to create a record then you seek a continuance from the district court and you appeal there fed the failure to grant that necessary but if you've had time to develop evidence then you present that and that creates a fact issue then the summary judgment tonight if it's granted then you come up here and show it the fact issue is you can't say judge some day i'm going be able to convince a jury that this happened when i don't have any evidence of it it just isn't i mean i respect how your client must feel about this case so it's not a criticism of you but just if there isn't the evidence they are it in there well if the jury were allowed to consider whether or not the lack of warning and the lack of knowledge of no contributed to what caused this accident when you say there's not oh there's no evidence in the record i think his warning alone is evidence in the record as to the dangerous nature of this equipment how often does anyone see warnings about anything that of this result in death or serious injury what why do i have a note to myself here that says warning not to haul the disk with the truck would have been  up he would not have been using it would have made a difference to me that's a factual is