statute forty six u s c when he three that allows an owner who ordinarily would have been responsible because the target was being operated by an employee of seacoast within the terms of the conditions of his employment when the crash intended to do that by showing that it wasn't responsible for the fact that the captain fell asleep when i tried to do that first place showing that they were in compliance with coastguard work out regulations because god has a rule that says people who work on the source of those can only work no more than twelve hours within twelve or twenty four hour period the obvious purpose of that rule is to make sure that the crew that are navigating these boats are well rested and able to do their jobs if you look at the pretrial order in thirty seven case from the circuit and in that case the court explicitly rejects the argument that's been made here by seacrest and it says that the claimant is not responsible to prove a cause for which the  every published decision that i can find and it's not surprising because that's the exact language that the statute uses it says the owner has the burden of the owner much of the assets are pretty in knowledge or full  this extremely damaging to the state's case because there they said going into the trial the understanding based on the pretrial order based on a pretrial statement the seacoast made it was a date for the verdict on that particular issue regarding the twelve hour ru compliance it's also particularly damaging because as the court explicitly finds in those same find its number twenty seven twenty eight the other hands on regarding compliance with the twelve hour work rule of this conflict things the cat and testified to one thing at a deposition the chest five slightly differently at trial the law and switched the captain testified in the company policy required at work the only means from one from which anyone could determine who was actually on watch whether or not they were in compliance with the twelve a little were not kept in a manner that was consistent with company policy from which an outsider could evaluate whether or not there was compliance with this rule at any particular time fail to require appropriate locks and fail to monitor the captain's record keeping requirements so and it's appropriate seems particular in this case to hold seacoast to that standard of proof there's no way that the maintenance of the logs is clearly within their management purview they monitor they should have been monitoring those things they should have known that they weren't being kept in a way that from which one could determine compliance clearly it's something the state can ask after the fact go back and recreate it and certainly the court this court should not adopt a rule that encourages companies to take the sort of head in the sand approach that encourages them to  overworked at the time the accident so on and so forth that's you've you look at their pretrial statement they like the pretrial order that's what everybody anticipated high school pretty good argument you made a good argument now and then you say there's another are you ok the other argument is that the court failed to that the captain was asleep when the crash occurred and we think that based on all of the cases that we've cited to you that is an absurdly narrow definition of their diligence standard in the cases also when there are instances where you can show that a crewmen a mistake because of fatigue because of you on this because of all these sorts of things that the duty is on the company do ensure that it has a fit crew when it leaves the dock and then obviously they have no way of knowing that they got sleep for the two minutes before the crash exactly what's going on but when they have a pattern and practice of a set of work rules the company policies that are good that are inevitably going to lead to fatigue and overwork truth they are all the cases that i've been able to find asleep if you read car or or western pioneer of this course this case when you prove a general proposition that he fell asleep or that he was negligent you don't get to assume that all the possible causes of him falling asleep ar in that aspect the preview is drug now think they could go through the record and find evidence from the d cup that the company knew he was intoxicated from their records then there is no right to limit my beliefs they are pretty knowledgeable they have captain issue with you have no duty beyond that as you see you have to put on any evidence about the cause of the collusion on the fact that he was asleep that correct but we don't have to put on any evidence of causation because that's not our burden the burden of causation is on th pretty well articulate that is their duty they have to prove it causative factors make it a negligence of the barge new owners and that's all then what would the owners do to try to get themselves are have caused him to fall asleep that he didn't have anything to do with it you know whether he was taking too much medication you know always and i think that in the list starts to grow it's actually are and that's the problem with putting the burden of proof on the defendant or is because you're now making these just fine liability just based on the fact that he fell asleep as it's that defendant that wants to get away from her wants to get his liability limited  defendant is trying to stay well the most logical reason for him to fall asleep i guess of the if he were overworked so let's prove we didn't overworking and then the plaintiffs will that doesn't have anything to do with that just shows that he didn't fall asleep for that reason  channel or make an allegation of the reason why he fell asleep and then i guess you then have to prove what that was to establish that's why he fell asleep and then the company would say yeah but leap in logic here they were trying to show that they're not responsible for that because they weren't overworking him at the time of the accident that was what they were trying to do now it didn't work out for the court didn't find a good that he found that the evidence was conflicting and hopelessly confused and if you know this is the whole as our whole argument if the judge had got the burden of proof right that should've met we when we get our entire damages that should have been the end of the story now what they would say i mean even if we had it even if we had been trying to prove the twelve hours worked our violation of even if we'd done that they're not they would next day well gee we didn't know he was in noncompliance with twelve hours of work at that time so how can we be responsible for there should be no discussion of the state's burden in the findings and conclusions of except with respect to the amount of damages we had we had filed the stormy judgment which was actually in a post yes and that stablished that there had been an act of negligence that were exaggerating the amount of damages to the bridge and that some things were compatible we clearly have the burden on all those issues and court found that we satisfied their burden because he found in our favor on each one of those damages the other and it's clear that the court just guide i believe scott confused because being a bench trial there was with witnesses being taken out of order there was also the typical things that go on a bench trial and you know it's sure that they've got a mechanically confident vest and the claim in that case was unable to show which one of the components actually broke or show any other any other more specific so the course that if that's the scenario and there's only error was caused by fatigue the trial court found that that wasn't proven in that case and so the court said all we have is a naked navigational air we don't know what caused it and so it's sufficient for that for the owner to show that they has the burden of keeping the order from limiting liability to the owner has the burden of showing that the cause that the claimant proved was not the his own was not the owners and that  sense when you look at with the free trial already going in the trial that we thought it was going to work they thought they were going to do that by showing that they were in compliance with the workout regulations at the time of the crash and so if the captain fell asleep it wasn't their fault it wasn't because they ever work and because they were working within the regulations now they were unable to they didn't get past that threshold they failed in their proof and so we contend that it had been just silly not to confuse the burden