binger honor may please the court my name is daniel snyder i represent the helen state of the state of public e greiner this is the case in which the ninth circuit is asked to rule on the district court's interpretation of oregon law on negligence practice in the standard of care and essentially it makes sense it is the responsibility of the architect to design when they're designing a jail to design a standard jail cell in a way that eliminates all the true instances that an inmate could directions architecture it would be if it would be improper to allow these architects to design general cells knowing that most prisoners the issue in this case you know whether under oregon law an architect who has included that design feature in a standard jail cell which has a prisoner suicide should it be held liable for that suicide and plaintiff has tried to extend defined her see ability did sweep the architects into it and that i would respectfully submit that the magistrate judge was incorrect in his reading of oregon law and that judge jones who and granted to oregon law is not crystal clear on this issue and the fossil laurie case the supreme court in an attempt to clarify the law of negligence by getting away from what it saw as i found issues of duty and obligation and proximate cause took off onto this new track of her see ability and judge of other supreme court cases that followed taza laurie and attempted to clarify it and that has been an ongoing process in our again with the most recent case in the our than steel mills against cooper case which drew upon both the puzzle laurie and you are cases to attempt once again to explain how foreseeability as a as the way tarlac it's not entirely clear but that does seem to be what is happening in oregon that there are some things that will always be a fact question but there are some things that are just outside the limits and if they fall outside the limits and as a matter of law they're not reasonably foreseeable and oregon steel mills court i think made a valiant attempt to explain what was going on i think it's still not entirely clear but the one thing that is very clear from that is there are certain things that just as a matter of law are not reasonably foreseeable even if they may have been predict oregon law is the court does not want us to talk about proximate cause legal causation even so as to fix even though i find it impossible to read especially the recent cases but ye for for those reasons in fact it's very difficult to even find a but for causation in this case because you would be saying that but for the fact that this bar was there he would not have committed suicide and there's there's no way to prove that one way or another i don't believe i don't think that that was something that was part of the evidence or a record but at the very least at the most this could be as a facilitation he made a conscious decision to kill himself and of the ways that he could have killed himself hanging was one and the bar facilitated that but there were other ways that he could have hung it there are other ways that he could have killed himself and there was evidence in the record of ways that prisoners in that cell that jail had killed themselves the other thing to keep in mind and this is something the regular cells in regular cells but there was that guarded against was inmate suicide therefore it is not an intervening cause the whole purpose of calling in these architects as corrections architects and expert incorrect he talked about this being reasonably for so reasonably forseeable and that appears on page sixty one of the record it well maybe that oregon's own unique analysis of negligence la