senior we determine tough were asked for example new trier case i think the dry case is probably the most analogous to this particular case that particular individual was on liberty he was of solo point military base a base which you need to get a pass to get on think he does that make a difference i think it does and the reason it is that it out looking at the nature of the activity you have to look at the military decision making comes into play if it's a military maintaining road i would submit that it's more arguable  the base and you get injured it's a logical to put a bright line the say in the same ziff you're off the base and coming back onto the base where one you should be fair sparkling should not be fairest part decision so you're going to look at the activity and there's a slew of cases talking about the activity and when you're looking at activity such as mr schonfeld if you look at is it recreational well arguably if it's recreational he's under on liberty at the time he's leaving base it is the nature of his activity is the reason he is on base only a benefit because he is in the military the answer is no anyone is able to beyond the camp pals and usually acquire base that was distinguishes this case from the bomb case the cosco there was other cases were also watching the case all those cases basically said that that was a benefit solely available to the individual because they were in the military the second thing to look out of the second aspect as well as the individual under  supervision for the activity that he was performing and i think that's very important because here we have ever shown felt passenger in a vehicle on liberty going to town the other says to hang out maybe get a bite to eat somehow i got thrown into the mix that he may have had his uniforms with him may have dropped them off of the cleaners and that seemed to be judged call to action to say this is a fairest bar case we pointed out to be th guardrail on he was insured by a private insurer and they offered the policy limits of the government abandon their right to claim to stop as to that amount and in addition there was a thirty thousand dollars felt with kwame but that doesn't necessarily mean the government abandon their right to claim  and won't be a double recovery so that in itself is not the distinguishing factor again you have to look at the nature of the activity and the nature of killing is decidedly nonmilitary as in this case it is not appropriate it should be  personal mission for example getting the donuts so the fact that he's necessarily getting the training materials which he wouldn't later need then necessarily need for that activity at that time he was on the compulsion military orders and i think those are the same wishing factors we need to look at under no strict compulsion for military orders for that particular activity there's no further questions like reserve the remaining time for battle thank you injured he was on a military base and he was on the base because of his active duty service he lived in the barracks on the base to which he'd been assigned to get off the base he had to drive along this road which is he t prior case in the supreme court books as long as the action occurs on the bas in each of those cases significantly the court said it would be it there would be a different result if the accident happened on a base so again i think here we have more than just location we have three things active duty not only second thing we have the private road well the public could get in but only if they entered through one of the seven gates only if their car was subject to inspection so they had to stay right on the road and drive it was different because the court made a point of accident on a military base especially this one the record shows that this was a base devoted to artillery firing ranges landing beaches aircraft bombing and strafing ranges large maneuver areas this is not the kind of area where the military lets people civilians come out of the base willy nilly if that if they come on at all and knows where they are and it has regulations that strictly limit their ability to go anywhere on the base ok i want to address the issue brought up sure supreme court focused on the fact that the and i'm quoting here that the key inquiry is whether the suit requires the civilian court to second guess military decisions and whether this suit might impair essential military discipline take the facts of this case in what way does this case implicate either one of those issues if you look at the deposition what came out from that which by the way happened is the promise marshal for whatever reason to nonstandard order down to the civilian public worst works office to fix the guardrail or to put up with any kind of a warning sign or anything so what's a place especially our lodging here is i states versus johnson and johnson the supreme court specifically charges the eleventh circuit for having engaged in that kind of analysis looking to the rationales of the fairness doctrine as opposed to applying the incident to service test and so that's not the way ruling and you're still but the other the best opposition was not the only new evidence the other evidence was shown films on deposition and he's the one who testified about the nature of this road and the fact that they're going on that road was the only way he could get off the case where there was a service member an army service member who was killed on a military recreational facility in hawaii and in that case the court applied the ferrous doctrine noting that he was on active duty service even though he was on liberty know that's a that's a different well i think that may make that case an easier affair is case and just one for that reason but this case that that case didn't involve military base that was an area that w oh i'm sorry it was not only if he was on liberty there's a distinction between liberty and leave leave is like vacations for you and me it's scheduled it can only be canceled if formally by issuing orders if you're on  personnel decision you know that's goes to part of the military system we're not here talking about second guessing mr wolf's civilian decision to put some comes out there to tell people there's a problem i mean this is a wholly different situation didn't get the appropriate relief under worker's comp they didn't have the right to sue they could have done much better in a court then i comparable no it's not because the us supreme court and congress have already indicated that it in service member can or where they talked about where they had to go through a gate or not but i think for purposes it is the dryer case is on all fours the reason being it's a military reservation as just keep note in the two thousand and three order and as this court has no it is a number of times in the first cosco and gone case because the nose activities this sort of reason why the individual was there was because it was only available to members of the military and their dependents here stuart mesa wrote is the main road to camp pendleton any  is this is presence there soley because he's in the military in other words tends to billions use the area as well and we know there's other cases they can't and it's the on the subject of direct miller's teller military control and orders and performing that particular mission not