the never ending case chapter t again what the north dakota supreme court would do and i ask you to take in here you are committed to if not required to take a look at the preamble to the statute and that has been referenced a couple times  case law that the purpose of the statute is to fully compensate injured people up to the extent of their coverage the nd part of the appeal again to know what to you is a summary judgment and that was granted i proposed sixty percent on a not twenty percent on my client amy and twenty percent on jeffrey's so from the beginning i was saying the jeffries had some fault it's not as though i changed my mind in order to take advantage of something the case whether i cited to the core specifically about that decision said that once i have prevailed taking a contrary position i can change my mind and hope to pursue another theory i had not prevailed on the question of whether he was twenty percent at fault rather his twenty five percent fault is that sufficient then to preclude me from suing him at this a sole operator and then an interrupting operator it seems like it's been decided in that at least in that case if i may ask you had are you referring to his press opinion or the one that was entered after remained by this court that he said that it doesn't reach that minimum amount or no it was not contested and in reviewing and preparing for the argument i realize that i recognize that i also understand me if you choose to do that on your own motion i understand in my going to make that motion no because i would like to see hildner mentor versus owners and at some point but that's a good point i recognized late i have not argued it i have not raised it but as i understand it the law is you folks can do that if you choose to do that rather than controlling jurisdiction when perhaps  should be subject to carry him dismissing for lack of jurisdiction well i don't know the jurisdiction is a fairly you know fairly broad it can be fairly liberal but i mean i i stand corrected in removing us i guess i cannot stand here before this court in oppose this court wishes to remand it back to state court for further proceedings that i think were so probably still at the same point so as far as judicial fault so we have clear positions of any men saw and her attorney in giltner won the case and we just got done arguing that her right her recovery to you i am against owners is strictly law that says there can be motor vehicle accident and not want a vehicle accident fault that combine to cause a single in the visible injury and that's what occurred in this case if if you apply all the conclusions as far as nobbs he was the driver the record is clear the findings are clear that mr jeffries was never an operator he was never driver of that vehicle all he was was a drunken obnoxious passenger who interfered with the appropriate operation of that vehicle and judges in his conclusions and one said samantha did not was the sole person in control of the vehicle and its operation he goes on  state in conclusion tend to not support was greater than any of the passengers due to the following until jeffrey's interference she was in exclusive control of the vehicle she felt to take out a good measures to stop jeffries from interfering with her operation mr miller never appealed that decision not part of the decision in giltner one it's our position that those findings and those conclusions are are either raised your car or collateral estop on mr miller and ms men saw in this case he cannot relate to get them again because they were litigated the st time and he did not appeal from that decision and i would bore the court with the  because in hilter one she said recovery against orders is strictly limited to the fifty five percent against an op and i want to court to consider this as well in both recover and have reduced to judgment against owners with the damages for injuries based upon the fault of miss deny all she clearly in that st case hilter one recognize that she is not entitled to recover you i am benefits based upon mr jeffries fault which was not not in the operation of the vehicle but was passenger interference fault which judges and  judge wilson concurred and affirmed and so whether we're talking judicial a stop of which we have here and we briefed it or collateral estoppel we have here and we briefed it or the undisputed facts of what happened they all l back to the same conclusion mr jeffries was never of the operator of that vehicle he didn't own it mr nor owned it and she was operating everything was fine until he pushes down on her leg and causes that car to speed up around that last  he never grabbed the wheel he never assumes the position of operator or driver this did not never asked him to take over the driving or operation of that vehicle he interfered and so our position that his interference is a large large percentage of what happened to cause ms hilton has injuries in this case so i'm not necessarily advocating for a remain and back to the state court on the basis of a lack of  jurisdiction but i think that even if we go that far a state court is still going to be bound by collateral and just will stop will because these issues of all been raised to litigate and argued and in hilton or won so we're going to arrive at the same point that we are here today so i guess a mean that this court retains jurisdiction it's our position judge wilson got it absolutely correct whether based on traditionalist aapl collateral estoppel or the undisputed facts of this case mr jeffries was never the driver or operator of that vehicle he was a polar opposite he interfered with the proper operation of that vehicle and but for that interference we're not here today in either case i've got about two minutes left i think my brief is covered in lesser some further questions thank you very m