so your complaint is wrong here on let's assume hypothetically that there is a new dangerous strain of salmonella out there rest of the product two hundred sixty five hundred seventy you raise which normally would kill salmon now it doesn't do the trick the problem is if we imagine in your company or you referred to was salmon elmo and everything else you just said was true there was an outbreak they were able to drink  if the complaint only alleged that simoneau was found in the pile and that an outbreak occurred in consequence of people consuming bad product or product was traceable to the defendant and that segue people knew that the people consume it got sick massaro it was traceable to defend product and there was a recall that would be perfectly consistent with the state law of cases that say having a product that the genetic pattern combinations were unique and new to the c d c and enabled the aftermaths to lengthy on nooses directly to the products but you don't say these new strains are more dangerous you don't even tell us whether the people who got sick cook the product or don't right there it's all sorts of stuff that would have been that not knowing very much about pathogens or c d c databases i don't know why the fact that something isn't in that database tells me it is plausible to infer that it's a dangerous properly but when you've got to leave clustered outbreak of call states it's just not plausible to think that's happening because everybody's not cooking it right current it's just that at least plausible that there's some problem made an argument i'd like to pursue which is that the illness is aren't necessarily in consequence of the consumption of the chicken that's true well we're in the complaint are you religious reading that this is a really problematic call and i thought the argument was well we can deduce that from the fact that people in different states roughly the same time are all getting said and that does seem it's plausible for think that it would all be cooking it wrong just at the same time but now you say well we don't have to cook it wrong in order to get sick from it that the only way you can get sick from it is by ingesting it wrong ok if you put that in your complaint could you still want it was a recall but he was so say we now know to a certainty this type of str that's what it says it does at no no it does say that there was a determination that there was this salmonella in advance pierre's foods which by the way combined manners chicken with cheese with bread crumbs with our with all of that a  a sufficient number of injury people and a sufficient number of different places that an inference can be made that this is particularly dangerous so i guess what i would say is i don't think that's whether she can if she survives that case i would concede that your honor she does not have to prove her case today starr does not have to prove they're viable but they have to do is possibly a wedge that reliable and to do that what they things that are more than consistent are also consistent with a lot of code so here she said it's more than just consistent seven zero plus an outbreak would be consistent with right ability potentially we don't know exactly what happened stream in advance here's finished products she has not sent in the complaint does not write any basis to say that that was in a manner stricken what i derive could advance here there's a disconnect here between on the one hand against peers downstream products and on the other responding to it you're on i think it is the course judgment is correct and it should go from now if you want to say that the precise rationale for the just the court gave is not a sufficient response to the argument starts making today i said two things first i'm not sure star made the argument it's making that the complaint hasn't given you any basis to say that this is different than the many other countless strains of salmonella that are out there there are hundreds or thousands of them they all have different names they all have different here patterns which are basically i this is no different than here that's my understanding and it's good when you read the complaint you really can't get any more than that when you do eat she says it's unique right she says unique in that the unique strain is unknown to the c d c you're saying that there's a seventy seven federal register of seventy two six eighty nine it's to emphasize guidelines that explain why they might tell somebody to a recall and what it says is there are many different reasons why we might do the recall one of them is that the food is contaminated right another of them is that it came with inadequate cooking instructions from labeling right and by the way if the food itself is contaminated you still need to know where the contamination come from and that's why the plaintiffs in this case most positive of the contamination came from us and i guess just very to your outbreak and the recall to two truckloads of adulterated chicken parts contaminated with this type of unique salmon now which had been purchase why isn't that enough to show that connection right the reason that's not enough is they say if you look at the earlier allegation there complain about how the computer system works what it does that are science bash numbers to each incoming product so they assign batch numbers to minors check and the chicken got combined with cheese and everything else made into fish meals so what they're saying when they're saying that is back in the chicken in these recalled names that chicken came from out there and what i'm telling you this yes it's true you cannot see adulterated  contaminated with that particular unique strain of sam wright bayless that we didn't test in fact no we don't ask you for the complaint they're just alleging a fact it could be wrong they have to alleged a basis for liability on our part and i guess what i'm saying is that allegation is equally possible i'm sorry fully consistent with you know many other situations where the problem didn't come from us the problem came from an adequate way of doing it cooking instructions and other things  is that you had testimony from the individual who oversaw insurance for that i think it was a school you know under you don't have those kinds of allegations you don't have things to push them over them compassionate neutral to actually possible if i could just touch on them on the economic loss issue on the part of starr here fails because it's barred by the economic loss doctrine that doctrine says that when you've got a tort claim any kind of tort claim you have to wedge damages that are either harm to persons or other property here star hasn't done any of that what those are classic examples of what the economical stockard barriers become that is two arguments and let me just quickly explain why both of those fail and the first is they say well they contaminated chicken injured the broccoli and the cheese right they