and when chester another employee of  a regular not that i'm a law oh oh mr here i well i want to make sure i understand california law on this topic i think i do but i want to i want to ask your your friend the same question let's assume that instead of the testimony that we had in this case the contractor who sold the saw here quiet said i bought it new in this package i never from home depot i never never opened it never did anything to it and that was his testimony with this case then due to we get past the question that bothered to just record in this case correct yes that's issue by by your client's testimony that he went to the store and looked at this in a back injury looked exactly the same it may have been that it wasn't and that could be proved later but  appropriate under those circumstances it would be because the nd prong abrasives is similar to the product claim that is th  various devices to examine the ball exactly magnifying it a one hundred and seventy five dollars times and she found absolutely no residue on the somewhere and was never able to be found so there are numerous facts from which and friends could be made to more likely than not standard and those facts include inside the upper door so it's very difficult anyone to get to  case design easy to prove it's got engineering drawings you've got safety reviews test data examples of identical products they can be brought into the core sneezer played it has no problem showing what he or she contends  defective about the sign and also what's critical here it means the defendant has a fair opportunity to defend that design there isn't any question about what it is and it knows what it has done now that's why when you don't have a record of the problem because it shouldn't have been produced and sold with a defect so that's like california law imposes on the plate of in a manufacturing defect cases the obligation not just  its original packaging it had he suffered precisely the same injury that he did one day after he bought it and then presented precisely the same expert testimony that he presented here would he have a jury case yes he w a road on a road trip to southern california and these facts are important you didn't get the guy's name it didn't get a receipt there's no it sure of the saw as he purchased it there's no picture of the pack you really river argument the effect being christened when it left the possession of the defendant out of the jury instruction and out of california law because if plaintiffs could always say well here's some evidence that might tend to show that nothing it happens to the saw and california courts and the judicial commission in acting the jury instructions has made a specific requirements because of to home depot's store or light up and he takes it home there's a presumption there that the chain of custody is going to stablish and if we want to show that a manufacturing defect there didn't exist when you are possessed and that whatever home depot store it was which we don't know and whatever intermediary purchaser there may have been we know that there was one unnamed guy by the side of the road we have no idea if you bought it from someone else but  depot and in response to my very st question in the deposition as to the basis of that inclusion you said well i don't know if they staple the boxes or the boxes i'm not sure how they're accurate but it was pristine and that judge or said there d is some level at which the quality of the evidence that you've been giving played of all the influences using title two and summary judgment doesn't get to the point where it's a the side of the road gave a deposition and said i bought this new from home depot and i didn't and this is exactly as i bought it would we have a jury case i think we probably would or we have because then we have the opportunity to do discovery and to find out into pro him and to see if in fact he did do something to alter it and if that really a case and we could prove any of those things you've got us conceding it goes to home depot and credible guys say and i bought it and kept it sealed and then sold mr hawley well i think that gap that exists in this case goes away well if i were to make mr hill's argument for him he'd say well we do have that evidence i put on a couple  experts to testify that it's very very difficult to open this thing up and change the things that we contend departed from the way it should have been manufactured the wrong boat was the wrong there wasn't enough gloom it doesn't that at least provide some evidence that that it as to that as to the manufacturing defect it's alleged there was no change in the  product it doesn't because for the following reason we and i don't claim that question of whether there was a defect at the time of the accident is summary judgment all ok all of that testimony from the experts is based wri on their expert testimony but if that were enough that would read the requirement that it be in the condition it left the factory right out of the jury instruction to write out of california law and the  apologized i saw the plaintiff's experts opined that it must have been in this defective condition when it left the factory because it's almost impossible to get inside and change the things that we found in there is it and that's not exactly what they said but i think it's close it is close your honor and but i think what's important is the expert mr hill referenced mr marko seated and may have been either cox or not properly installed or inadequately engaged or tightened further inspection of the net it's not possible to determine that utilize contain the locking mechanism in accordance with the design and engineering so even what is demarco says if you accept it at face value as of the type of the accident or actually two years after the accident would she inspect she's only target of scenarios and the reason to get back to the critical issue in this case the reason why that isn't enough and why it might be in some other case is because they can't benefit actually be fit cases in california are special it's it it is a heightened burden on the place and it's a heightened burden because plated in this case is knology twenty five thousand of these things went out of the market as far as i can and twenty four