even going to the question of law which is the duty question still have at this point we have to say is physical evidence to support the finding i think the court ruled against a directed verdict know that there's a danger that this this other tree may become contaminated with the fungus but actually hire an expert somebody at the golf course with that knowledge it was not going to be discovered by simply giving someone check if there is some evidence to support it and i think we have some i wonder whether there's sufficient evidence whether it really is sufficient and weird and what we're going with this is this this will be  also vice president worse real team management as part of this julissa you have capacity from time to time with goals of the course and he would make sure that the people at the golf course who responsible for maintenance  did their jobs properly part of that duty was to instruct them on training incidents faction says mr clayton testified that he knew understood and appreciated the dangers associated with trees falling on the golf course especially in places where people were likely to be present he tested by the you wonder stood appreciated that if a tree fell on the golf course in the area where the more people would have been present it could cause serious injury or death  this testimony that there are some trees on the golf course there in your periphery he said i don't know which way they would fall but if they fell he could fall on the off property he expected his golf course superintendent to reason it fell from was because of the dam do i would have done it and we know what would have happened if an arborist were hired in this case because the jury heard testimony we have to accept that testimony from our ask her that if an arborist were higher than would have looked at that two thousand and six treaty would have their bird to prove that she was on golf course property we disputed try and argue the alternative to the jury in the jury certainly could have sided with our side of the case because if you recall the only evidence that they provided in a trial that was on a golf course property where we have a treaty that the that the golf course was put on notice was dangerous that there was a dangerous condition it falls on to the straight somebody off the property under those sets of circumstances the traditional negligence rules apply in   this is a guy with no real prior experience as a golf course superintendent worked his way up to that position jeff you would have known then now f she had this conversation she had no reason to disbelieve him because she felt that if he said he was going to do something she condition she in the boy in her position would reasonably think that gee whiz the reason i spoke to this person was because i was concerned about the health of the cheese he said he would do something about it and based upon what i saw and continued to see up until the time  was interesting to me that the golf course superintendent that they hired said there is no standards and they testify for about fifteen minutes about how the difference different tree inspection policies is a different golf course that he was dead so yes there is i disagree with in the area didn't fall so probably the weakened trees with the sea disease well being we never got to that point because it wasn't an issue in the case and i don't want to talk about i want to talk about a school boat was done afterwards because  goes into the realm of subsequent legal measures we were not allowed to testify that testimony at trial so i feel uncomfortable talking about it but all i can say is that with the jury you as then the tree fell  testimony that two things need to be proven or two things need to be done on the golf course it's that second thing then that proves the proximate cause here that there has to be somebody at the golf course with the wherewithal to make the decision and you know that reasonable people in that position if that's their job and they can do it like cesar locust testified in this case they would go on hire an expert to do it that's what we're saying should have been done that's what the jury relied upon that was the testimony of our not a part of this record but