before the supreme court of the united states to revisit this well established principle i don't think though ultimately it makes much difference because either the supreme court united states has to change whether we use the looser standard or with a stricter standard the outcome should be the same and that is rehearsal for a course summary judgment the facts of riders though are also instructive that this case it's not often that they are and usually were siding for the legal principle but if the court recall in roger's a trackman was instructed to stand back while the train was passing this train fans some flames along the track wrong when it took away the juries are in favor rogers and that that a submissive case happens the reason they're instructed in this case is because in this case the plaintiff mr nader hoffner was reacting to  perceived danger that had or that and risk to him and the company's property as a result of the truck sliding down the icy slope in the yard and coming into contact with the cut apart and that's  particular geographical location but for the fact that the truck it slid into the side of the train with a greater or lesser the force the railroad would try to disconnect this chain of events at that point the locomotive came to a stop and that engineer perceiving risk to himself went to get off the locomotive and he wasn't injured in the process  to correct that but to answer your question it was more complex than that there was two there were two counts there was a negligence count in the locomotive boilers section the jury found for the railroad on negligence the court directed verdict on watch violation and the issue of causation as part of that ruling also was commented on by the board that jury should have received that as well so that's the full procedural scope of that case mixed donal's allegation that the use of a forklift in the snow was the cause of mcdonald's injury but the facts are clear and gave the opinion as clear in that case that mcdonald was injured after the forklift was extricated from its position of being stuck in the snow that's not the case here neither officer was injured while trying to actually save the arche truck from its position against the rear distinct factual difference as to why those cases are different and in fact mr needed office submitted to the or the circuit for the the raritan rules that required him to immediately report this to a supervisor to be responsible for his own safety and to look out for conditions that threatened to say which is exactly what he was doing directly on one these are the sections of the restatement that addressed legal parise intervening was those those topics and section forty five says if the actors that would be the rarest negligent what the situation was and the need to react to perceive more is not interrupting is not an interruption of the chain of events and especially when we  of course that that i mean first we're here on summary judgment why usually causation is something we let the jury decide because this is not what we're talking about that's a good excellent question and it discusses why it brings up why we're responsible for it it's it's it's the fallacy of the argument this post up her rock bottom you know what nonsense but it means something and that's why we get back to the point where we're gar danger to himself and the driver including whether leaving the truck in that position a good idea or not the whole issue about the complaint is a red herring again hyperbole you were if you talks it has the allegations when mr right spread one sentence of one paragraph or see left out the next sentence that talks about the icy conditions being creating an unsafe work place he left out the sentence adjectives or adverbs i used in my reply the issue for the circuit or whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether mr nader boppers response to the collision caused by the defendant's name was a normal response in the normal course chain of the vets and of course the cell phone all he was making was in compliance with the reverend rule to immediately report this allusion to his s wasn't talking to his wife or order in flowery thing like that he was immediately responding to his supervisor by cell phone because the radios that he had been supplied didn't drive did not work they were saying to the rarest other communications that's the cell phone call that was being you know it's all part of a national chain of events resulting from the rarest negligence in the jury should have decided whether the negligence was