arbitration rolls and its application to this case and every other case yet if the award is silence as to damages the court cannot or damages the court cannot award damages that were not specif in the mandatory operation were it as it is it in that case that you're citing it for that proposition were any damages awarded yes right and in this case work any damages awarded now right there go either the court had found that it was a good faith file a food face a hundred mts we were entitled to litigate that amount even if we were found one hundred percent liable let me ask you this had this been a jury trial and the contribution cla the jury trial after a jury has and let's see if they came to the amount of the just which they would do but the jury is given a contribution instruction and they are told to apportion they are not told to put in the damage amount that's done by the court after the verdicts are we see that's the procedure that i'm familiar with now correct me if i'm wrong i'm not counterclaim that's the only issue that the arbitrator's are are focusing on and only have the right to focus on because the damages had been determined when the plaintiff and the two defendants settle in she released will defendants she released mr hernandez from any future liability so how is this different where the trial judge would then what the dollar figure  and and the case was settled before arbitration no no amount of the settlement was introduced in the course of the arbitration hearing what exactly what steps should have been followed in this case to have really did the problems that you are money damages in the body of the award until you get down to the cost and said no costs all right and so we have case law on one side the cruise versus northwestern that you cited that says you know when a w you could have rejected but you didn't retract and now you've raised before us a question of law that says is that a word valid when taking into contact it into the fall into account the  this case is that if jury when given a contribution claim has the right to determine the amount of damages what they determine is fully the percentage of all that's what the contribution step is all about determining the amount of fault percentage of fault it's not about determining there's nothing in the contribution there that even suggests that the purpose of the statute is to determine that amount of damages it's but there's herman it's to allocate fault when one tortfeasor has paid more than his fair share of the damage just as someone has to make a finding of fact as to what the amount of damage this was whether that's the court or the jury and i agree but in the country you're fills that role in both cases but for this case there was a determination of damages because there was a settlement determined that's it in addition to having a trial on the issue of damages the wall or settlements and in this case there was a settlement which de facto determine the amount of damages the plaintiff was entitle to she agreed to the amount of damages she was entitled to that was seventeen thousand five hundred but she didn't have anything to do with the allocation of fault because the two defendants suit each other for that day i wasn't there our claims base that's true but the done it a different way is there a reason to do it a different way so that we can avoid this sort of exchanges that we're having that really don't lead us to a clear answer the short answer is no you're right and i think that  issue and once there's been a preliminary showing of consideration paid work appears to be a good faith so with the burden falls on the defendant challenging it would have been incumbent at that point for the defendant to challenge  arbitration hearing i'm not sure that there is a transcript of the arbitration hearing and you know that fact i'm not sure i could find it in the record for us so is there in the package reference to that s damages that jury would not in their determination of allocation of all everybody in the amount of damages that would be what the court would enter after a judgment was entered the verdict reached by  seeking to put the issues before us in the context of the arbitration proceedings and you say it's really not but let's say we want to address that situation and we want to clarify the law as to the arbitration proceedings are you saying that there are problems in the high retracing rules that might you know call into question what happened here are you saying that what happened here was consistent with the procedures already set out from patricia it was completely consistent driver in the case law says that one of the elements of a contribution claim which i believe is also contained in the i p i instructions is that the  here and it's really just a contest between the co defendants some say must be included in somewhere in the arbitration proceedings or not really not really hear after the judgment of the awarded him why did he initially order first of all he ordered that the hundred percent apportionment stand one hundred percent negligence stand but then he ordered that the matter proceed to a trial i'm back with cause and medical damages why did he do that and that he transferred it to another judge and then it was just done for who decided that there really wasn't any need for d later on recognize that by saying that he did not need to hold a hearing to determine a good faith settlement they hit already essentially done and up to this point essentially hernandez was never raised in for everybody that section refers to a situation and this is what we were addressing by the citation a situation where one of the defendants settles that this is not just charge the liability of the codefendant in which case the code disproportionately perhaps because of some relationship with the parties and there was the possibility of collusion but in this case that would not have been a risk and there was no real need for a good faith finding  that the opposite decision could have been made and we'd be reviewing that as well under an abuse of discretion standard his and this really a questions of law that need to be resolved in no uncertain terms i think the only contribution counter claim the amount of damages needs to be addressed at some point can't enter a judgment against a party so either the judge or the jury or the arbitrators someone has to turn the amount of damages i mean let's say let's say let's say the ultimate lawsuit comes after the arbitration and we have only one couple party in and the ultimate lawsuit becomes a zero damages case it doesn't matter that it happens after him and neither party neither defendant gets hurt nothing specifically on this because i don't think it has been addressed but i do crows every claim i asked a recent arbitration under cruise under the consumer fraud act even if they had case a gone to jury trial it still would have been for the anything else yes  i remind you that there was no good faith finding and to hold to uphold this judgment on the war would effectively deprive a not settling defendant of any opportunity to ever contest damages whether it settled for a ten thousand dollars two hundred thousand dollars or two million dollars and it would contradict the contribution act because there wasn't back no good faith finding of that this was a good faith settlement and i would remind you that run of the purposes of the contribution act is to protect the financial interests of the not settling but wouldn't have been then what your obligation was would be to green jack the award that that ordered that  case had gone to arbitration on the underlying complaint the tort complaint and the other traders had found in favor of the plaintiff and found my client one hundred percent negligent or one hundred percent liable but again  before them if it's a near wish before them presumably they're aware of what that nero issue is and they have to be informed of it by some means and the question is how and i thought it was it comes out in some way or other meaning the parties conform to the limiting the issues before them which i concluded abberation ok and again i think the defendant has castors her right to contest the amount of damages and even under the contribution act which must be strictly construed someone to make a determination the way it is is that something that he would agree to i don't think that's the appropriate disposition because again i think it should have been the arbitrator led by the other traders when they did have the issue of damages