these days not exactly and easy job and one that's come with a lot of different wished in terms that some a vessel my age are not used to like this technology and i can direct attention to the district  interpretable please please address that case because i do think that is the most relevant case by far and i thought it was bad for you you say it's good for you tell me how could i git it's good for me because in the latin press case they theory of liability of the same legal for some it essentially the district court's opinion was that we needed to show that he intervene manufacturer was in many factor of the product that is not what exception to the successor corporation having the assuming the liability of the st one of the exceptions is when you have a merger consolidation in this case  energy has not it's in fact that method or different places there was a merger st of all went out that had there not been a merger scott who was never employed by one hundred was would have had the ability to sue which is one of the status is that all of the cases except the dual persona or dual capacity dr and what they about this very very narrow actual scenario that obviously happened periodic lee but not common place i think i think you hit the nail on the head it's going to be a very narrow exception that it's going to not come up very often more likely what you're doing if you do not accept it is a bad policy because as most of the courts that have accepted this doctrine have pointed out what you end up with is that the manufacturer of products being able to loose liability for putting a defective product either the design or manufacturing the stream of commerce and  able to escape the liability or circumvent the liability of the staff are allowed to do that and it has been never disputed that you can contract the way that we have to let me let me interrupt you that's a matter of state although you agree  and ceased to exist as a separate entity now mr williams conceded that we really have a question of law here whether the scotts claims are barred under the exclusive e immunity provided for under north dakota lost and on that point north dakota law is very clear and in fact  statutory scheme for north dakota workers compensation is contained in title sixty five of the north dakota century code and it provides in outline but four different places  larson is saying about this sort of even more narrow focus on dual persona as as an indication at least that north dakota might consider this more narrow application of this particular discussed it it did not apply and in fact the doctrine has never been applied in a case in north dakota and you mean in the holding of the case right counsel not the rationale the quote from larsen talks about the whole tensile that an employer in addition to being the employer would have a  capacity that confers out obligations independent of those imposed on him as an employer and on that point the the trial court and in that case i just a refresher on that case that case the employer manufactured the pin in the employee was injured while installing that pin and so it was argued that  the employer should be treated as having a dual capacity that of employer and manufacture and that there should be an exception exclusive remedy rule which was rejected alternately in the holding  and after discussing the the latendresse court discuss that and focused on the requirement that the employer occupies a nd capacity th obligation independent of those imposed on him as an employer and in that case as in the case before the court the obligations imposed on the paul employer  were not different separate independent of the status of the employ of the as an employer in other words in a different capacity they would the employer old obligations to provide safe product and safe work environment to the employee and as an employer the employer had obligations similar so there was no independent obligations holland followed the same thing at base ten of his order appendix page one hundred basically after discussing these issues a key energy did not acknowledges this are a distinct separate legal persona so soon for the purposes of this question that north dakota what it knowledge that narrow version of the dual capacity what would that apply to do you think if not this situation with the merger well it could potentially apply in a situation where the employee is is injured by a product but not in the in the a work setting as there is here that would be a different situation or maybe different obligations under a situation like that which are not present here they simply wouldn't even have to get into that situation right be this is this sort of discussion because the person would not be in the course of their employment and so the worker's comp issue would not would not be a live one if i'm understanding your example can you think of another one well used in the work cannot be held liable and damages to its own employee either through siri of products liability so i think larson is recognizing that the limitations of finding the possible dual persona that's been urged in this case and i'm struggling to prove a negative because this is a situation before the corps where the obligations  are not independent and the duties old were inexplicably linked to the employment the equipment was used for the work so on other these circumstances i don't see how it would be  example where the north dakota court would adopt the dearth do a capacity situation and nat as i mentioned there's four different places make it clear that there is no common law right of action preserve it in products liability strict liability negligence was section sixty five all want to one so has the grand bargain worker's compensation basically the injured worker gives certain certain relief regardless of fault and to the exclusion of all other remedies and to that end all civil actions and civil claims for relief those injuries are abolished except as provided in title sixty five and eight says if the lawyer secured the payment of compensation by contributing premiums to the fund the employee does not have a claim for release against the contributing employer for damages for personal injury but  and then it says after careful consideration of it but then they say failed to establish the holding is failed to pass then it came within the do about that sounds like they're recognizing it when you say hear what you say and it well let's for purposes of this case whether latendresse recognized it or not for multiple reasons the not appropriate for application of the dual capacity was the product here sold to the public at large that that's a great question your honor there is no evidence in this record the some of the other cases from other jurisdictions made a distinction between being sold to the public or not that that was a mistake porting to larsen and the court and went on the nd full paragraph judge hogan pointed out that he that is mr scott did not sustain an injury as a result of his use an operation i draw our system as a member of the general public think we agree with that because the pin that was manufactured in law was not so the general public but only used in the process for the employer to work the evidence in this case is so hyper wall were manufactured and sold to the general public prior to the time that they merged with key energy he energy delivered to discovery we have learned not only the hydro blocks to the general public use in the oil field work but they also sometimes renewed operators with them to go out on location not only were the the general public subjected little cells to the use of the h it talks about the fact that the douglas case overlooked the simple fact that the use of the product was a routine and intro go part of the employment and from what you've just told us