may please the court this is a case about a wrong way driver who spoke still needs to be accounted for and a trial court that ignored and rejected this appellate court's mandate from five years ago in what i would call claimed and worded by the point of scout so the response of this court was very precise quote contrary to the circuit court we conclude that indiana law governs the liability and damage issues in this case the they still have to file of the farm law of this state that is then but not your honor if this particular court has already decided that indiana law plies in order for it to be different the plaint medical expenses in indiana is cross examination of treating physicians or the direct examination of my medical billing expert christine craft which i was not permitted to give that's a good example of the law that would  look at we didn't rely on instead she relied upon the normal commercially accepted numbers but more importantly the numbers that were actually accepted by the workers comp carrier in this particular case right let's go back to what you called that number one because when you were here before and i was on the panel i wrote it i typed it you argued from the very beginning in this case it was beyond peradventure that mr callous was the precipitating cause and main cause of this accident right quoted in there most of the information came from the police report right did i think that probably part of the act as you guys are fine if it was put in bowl so you're going to overstatement but also understatement because your st footnote in the brief in front of us now indicates that much of the facts that we relied upon that one came from the police report i think i do know the fed in a footnote to make sure the court did not believe we were trying to suggest that this court had already decide that was there anything that this court or the trial court did that prevented the defendants from putting in their entire case against this wrong way driver yes what among the things is three of two of the three police officers had opinion testimony that their foundation was appropriate and that could have offered up the opinions they gave in their separate depositions all of these were the cross that was not permitted by this other problem so that's one example the other examples we got we got to put on our case and unfortunate the jury decided zero percent although there was a indiana jury instruction that clearly said that he had to be found at fault and rust the behavior was excused there was no evidence uses it's well the be frank here you have a case in which a wrong way driver is and the road and then there's an accident and one would think that there's going to be some involvement and that he's going to have some percentage and you were here in front of us because you wanted to make sure that his name would be on the verdict form it was on the verdict form you were here because you wanted to make sure that they could ascribe a percentage of fault it was there and they put zero so instead of the fact that to me it seems like we have a proof ectomy because the jury didn't believe the case that you had against the strike for what the against the wrong way driver and for whatever reason that is a decision they made now as i argued in the as we argued in the appellate briefing that particular issue was perhaps ignored by the jury because of the inflammatory nature of the closing arguments i mean i can't speculate on that front yet amateur psychologist as to why it is the the jury did what it did but the law was going to break clear and told them if you find that fa same analysis as this particular case with the same analysis and that indiana law i would suggest why not controlling it is certainly persuasive well i think i think you're ignoring here is the  the testimony as to the qualifications and the conduct of the defendant driver in this case i mean come on this guy was an accident waiting to happen based on the testimony at trial if one if one w except in this particular case given the indiana law gets applied that kick the jury instruction where fault must be assessed according to that jury instruction i submit that there had to have been some percentage of it on fault was ascribed his name is on the verdict form is being at fault but there's no percentage because they didn't believe that his conduct was a cause it can be a condition rather than a cause you're familiar with that land cases are united in illinois yet in indiana i don't think they recognize that particular nomenclature but the point the but the point being made here is that the barnard case i think is the authority i present to you for consideration saying that there should have been a o may i move on to another right thank you very much so just basically summing up the mandate is the mandate and they will not show me indiana law and indiana damages life a lot and damages law should have been assessed saddam case from the indian supreme court during right hand on the decision itself i want to point out to the court two very important footnotes for your consideration footnote four  the is the footnote of saddam decision where the court recites all of the legion of cases over the previous fifty years that shows that the only time under indiana law that a negligent hiring and retention claim can be made is when illinois where there is an exception and it's a not seated another st district case that's not indiana law indiana law is so damn made it very very clear you can only have a negligent hiring retention claim if there is an is later in his one year time period where he doesn't do certain things he's supposed to manage certain things but you only have two cases in indiana arrested three times for driving while license suspended sound familiar higher driver in violation of internal hiring almost ceased once again sound familiar failed to terminate the driver in violation of the company requirements again spot on with our case about when mr mode has the chance and should never been allowed to drive you a c e o will hear sounds familiar and certainly isn't that a statement made with the incredible prism of hindsight certainly we can all say afterwards i'll say now i'd like to with my final order five minutes of my initial twenty minute period or talk about closing argument because maybe we'll find out in that