my client was injured by what's called a blowout means when it was hoarding it blew out of the hole went into his eyes blinded him and when i caused severe burns on his face and arms and as a result of that we have this loss in the i represent the state because my client committed suicide after after that point in time in one thousand nine hundred ninety the main issues that we think are subject to review  would have considered were travel issues the fact in particular he made a finding that when i called the use finding that there is no way in a trial we could overcome a witness's testimony that my  there shouldn't be there shouldn't be a determination as to credibility especially in such a large issue as whether or not the use was proper the third filing we think was a proper is that the to the evidence was attached along with an internal they had an internal instructions on how to use the product for people in japan and if they are not a plant and then they have instructions that came to the united states we believe that that was substantial and circumstantial evidence that showed that that the product was dangerous at least in order to get us into the defective product around the m nonetheless the court we  the experts that was hired by or not i should his test them we should have not been allowed in it might not have been allowed the way it was finally came down there was some orders that were whether or not a warning is proper you have to look at the end user person and my quiet to determine whether or not that end users expectations would be stars filed by the morning my client was probably the foremost person of the lake on this particular thing and what not we believe that at least the formula should have been provided to him we believe that at least he should have an expectation by having worked with the product before he had not finally i'm trying to go fast finally we believe that there was an error well there's an area in every place where the court struck privilege is required but also we believe there was an error in its finding there was there was no extreme an outrageous conduct and that kind of goes back to the factual finding that the court actually made a finding there was no extreme in an outrageous conduct in this case we believe that it was a special finding improper a very extreme an outrageous crime in this case these people have a warning that had substantial elements that were not listed in the u s warning for instance they had a warning that said when you use this pro side because it as it blows out it has a splatter range and then they knew that if the time they were drafting the united states warning also in the morning or in the documents  in the other in the united states when it said these are the temperatures to use it but it didn't say to put it in the hole and it's important it sounds trivial but it's important because there were three different types of temperature that could be considered rock temperature water temperature outdoor temperature and so it was very important that the people using this product should have known it you put in you should put in this temperature gauge and then after two or for their clients you weren't supposed to you're supposed to fill it up to a point in the hole that was ten centimeters below the top and in the west it did not have that the following reasons was there a difference between the warnings given us customers and on us customs i believe there were some differences in the warnings with respect to how they were expressed and the content of some of them yes the word there were no to characterize them as more stringent or less stringent i mean as a matter of counsel speculation but there's been there was no record testimony on that issue by anybody that could be need an answer a question you want to guess why why do we need an expert to say here's the warning that was given in japan here's the warning was given here the warning was given here clearly didn't one of the consequences that we actually had in front of us and therefore you know i didn't know what i was there were exhibits to one of the depositions of another witness yes i think that's out of the can part of the record and they consisted of your client's records they were internal documents from my client or i which included other reports of other accidents as well as some documents in japanese that were used in japan which treated with the product that was there some contention that they weren't records from your clients or that they were  or that they required some foundation to  contentions was that there were adequate warnings about the product you are playing was that there was no genuine issue of fact with respect to raised by he did put those records before the court you're sure but nothing else no comment or expert testimony about those records you're out of the mind of roy half a dozen claims in his complaint and he had five years to claim of strict product liability and product defect and whether you need an expert to testify with respect to that clane other player for lies on the stack in which case which i think can be distinguished from the facts in this case because we agree that you do not need to call an expert witness to prove product the fact it is a complex product liability cases here but if you don't you need to offer circumstantial evidence that shows that and found that there was no that there was no expert testimony and that there was no circumstantial evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of fact as we have here request for the formula in the discovery process contract claims there was no contract between the plaintiff the district court probably found that there was no  respect to that claim so i can only claim left is the product liability product defect claim which i believe through a microscopic analysis the district court below as i explained hopefully found ok time's not my concern i just want you to understand then you have to respond to what he said yes internationally and then with respect to the first argument that there was my point was never represented as being an expert on of our versus united type tire i'm sorry i don't have the state specifically here but i know that it is in my brief with respect to whether or not there was outrageous conduct and that was one of the things that's going to point out too i mean it was it was it was it was there i don't need to overstate it we believe that it's extreme and outrageous conduct for somebody to know a product can blind you if it gets in your eyes and it does not say that have their internal documents and i think this product was blowing up before it got to the united states we have substantial evidence we have the person or we have the person that was t