policy call for this court well i'm going to give you three considerations that any good i would say to you i wouldn't probably say no because i think it is three considerations for this issue and one would be the existing how much i can visit is that all real is that there's a lot of issues obviously in the law over the years has been reluctant slow this clean for that's the reason but in this particular context and again this is the florida supreme court talking instead of me but it creates it multiplies that difficulty because you're going to have a case where every plane is going to have severe emotional stress as a result of the loss of their loved one but that's never recovered so majority of jurisdictions now well that's interesting i pleased recess there's twenty two states that are going to weigh so i don't i don't i didn't even if it probably could be fifty close to that but again going back to the serious case and the legislature reacted to that in acting the crematory regulation i think is so interesting leigh i filed an additional authority last week to just to show it was a case where argues that individuals who handle human remains should not be subject to a negligence standard and should instead be granted partial immunity under will when one stands to finast is this logical and the plan would it carefully considered in looking at emotional distress damages especially in the context of negligence which of the motion was drugs i was the court ensure that those claims are consistent with what the average individual believes a compensable harm would defend elements such as zone of danger or a direct impact in this particular case the defendant actions resulted in hurt and destruction in cremation of the plaintiff side this was contrary to her desire this is contrary to what she wanted to happen in this to leave her of the ability to have an autopsy performed so that she could find out why her son died unexpectedly at the age of thirty nine this is a real and palpable arm that the pla assess damage you see here it's would be very difficult for the jury how about normal human grief for the loss of a loved one emotional distress that perhaps was caused decisions and when it comes to damages this is no different than that in or any person in your case for example we ask the jury to differentiate between an award for pain and suffering emotional stress and loss the normal life we can see how those might be difficult with europe to separate out nonetheless because we also understand that those are real palpable harms that are suffered but they are sensible under the law and the same is here jury is well  differentiate here and you wonder stand as some of the distress the family members members will experience be the death of their loved one but they also are fully capable of realizing that actions that you know if you are with expectations that prevent them or more system where to some of the property cases where there is a recognition that sometimes when there is an interference with property or destruction of property sometimes there is no experience about that does not mean it's could talk about policy here the argument has been made that the public policy has been settled in this state for a very long time and that you're asking for a change here we have the legislature legislating in this general area but that the legislature was highly concerned that people handle human remains do so under a high degree of standard of care and as a result set or a statute with very specific requirements that you know torrance must follow and if they don't from what we can say for certain is they did not change the law but with regard to the question will come one versus negligence defendant is is posing this as an expansion of liability when that is not really the case here importance of this theory of the law and the necessity to move back to the more standard more well recognized and universal negligence standard and i would like to clarify this defendant when when when a made about the number of states that have addressed this particular question he presented it as was more or less fifty fifty i would disagree with that lucian we know from the brief that twenty two states that have considered this have adopted negligent standard either recover under will one or by proof of contemporaneous physical manifestation of that emotional distress in that in the concurring opinion from one of the justices in the florida supreme court talked about how that was not terribly difficult burden to meet and do the belief that this would not be too much of an a limitation on place just because of the type of emotional distress this particular tort is likely to cause did listen to those arguments but the ultimate ruling was that the defendant did not go with duty to the plate this is a very important distinction because by filing there isn't you know duty the trial court could dismiss this with prejudice wh allegations contained in the complaint rise to the level of will conduct plaintiff here has argued that she has met her burden of leading in this regard and that the conduct of securitized by completely disregarding written security policies that are in place to prevent this type of error rise to the level of willful and wanton misconduct in that furthermore this question of whether or not the finish breached his duty is generally one that is a question of fact and as a result it was inappropriate for the tr the complaint was welcome one day there was a short discussion of that and but there was no explicit ruling one way or the other because the fourth district focused on this bigger picture question which we are now focused on which is whether or not the wealth and one standard truly reflects intrinsic right of the family members and the next of kin to ensure that their loved ones are properly here or are you saying that regardless of how on your negligence versus well from what my client is sufficient you know you're saying time to read sam and this because as both parties have noted this is the first time this particular tort has ever been considered at this level that it is ever had the chance to go before this court and to be reviewed to determine whether it accurately reflects the state of consistency and predictability in the law is necessary to follow the never just standard absent some quality or some criteria or some factor that requires movement away from the work when one standard and the simply is not trial for further proceedings