opinion back in two thousand and fourteen and actually found that there was a genuine issue affect for the plaintiff to proceed with the negligent entrustment claim against mr levinson and mr canoes in the two owners of the plane and therefore it's certainly our position judge that the the law of the case really precludes so the defendants from raising the arguments that they have that  ignore everything that occurred in the aircraft that night and i believe that the defendants have taken that sentence and used it to create arguments and theories that there was no possibility for the plaintiff to prove a claim of negligent entrustment or that any testimony or expert opinion about the cause of the crash would be speculative and i do about why the plane crashed and i believe judge sauls dinnick also got drawn into that thinking and i suggested in accurately or improperly comment that we don't know everything that went on in the cockpit that night and i don't believe runners would have sent the case back on the negligent entrustment claim if you really thought there was no possibility of it being proven but in reality council yes what evidence did you establish in the record that goes beyond pilot negligence to specific negligence by the pilot that was could be attributed to his lack of training his lack of experience had made it negligent to interesting point ok judge i think number one i don't think there has to be a specific act of negligence for seeing by the intrust door  recklessness lack of place ensure that type of thing judge so i think it's a broader us kid cory put it would you agree you have to show more than negligence by the pilot right you have to show that the pilot did something that was landing speed according to the manual is one hundred and three dollars knots one of the owners mr levinson testified he lands that one hundred in ten knots we have evidence despite not knowing everything that went on in the cockpit they were really good up points that picked up evidence of about the flight path that was able to determine that what the plane street was at the  pilot did wrong it's a negligent trust me case right so you have to show i think to show proximate cause in a negligent trust me case not only to the person who to whom it was intrusted made mistakes but that those mistakes were directly attributable to the  things that should have been known about right that you should have known he might do this because you knew he lacked this training or something are so you're telling us that the speed was he was flying too slow and too low how does that tie in to what the defendants the defendants now i feel here should have known about turn because trish they should have known that he was not current to be flying the plane at night and therefore he should not even have been operating the plane as the pilot in command he was he will flying it not being able to fly it night led him to fly too slow now let it cause the defendants to think there's a least a i think it is one of the contributing causes and gives rise to evidence that is more likely than not it is a contributing cause because if he wasn't current with his by any real flight review he wasn't current with night flying therefore he shouldn't have been flying the plane and then the one laying claim justice is that if defendants and especially levinson and that simply asked if he was current for checked his drug works they would not in should not have ever given him the plane and therefore this pilot is never in the position of flying this plane and then secondly with respect to mr canossa and there's evidence in the record that canoes and the other owner of the plane who did he tell to his his friend ben like when when they got i know the defense is claiming exists they all said any case brought that supports that i think that is too high of a burden and standard and what will that how do you distinguish negligent trust me from vicarious liability because i mean if it was  pete because of knowing or should have known dead he was not eligible unqualified to operate as a pilot a command and therefore as the owners they had to  make sure they were in trusting their plane to somebody that was cake capable and legally qualified to be the pilot in command and in judge your honour's i don't think you hey i don't think you can lose sight of the fact that in a negligent entrustment case the very point is that the aircraft or a car or whatever it may be should not exists wasn't in trusted to the sufficient recognition of that because if it is the active and trusting the plane that is the st contributing cause and the incident never happens if they had not intrust at the plane so for those opinions to be speculative based on your honor's comment many years ago about not knowing everything in the camp cockpit that gave rise to judge so striking expert opinions ruled on the same role in this case a separate issue and i just want to check my time real quick and i think that's yeah that's almost seven minutes that's all have unless you're under seventy questions from a very much i think that all of this is extremely important with regard to see whether or not plaintiff has met its burden in establishing evidence which is different than where we were before in this case when we're here in tw knew of the flew in and out of there they knew that it was intimately experienced with landing at the walkie the landing pattern walkie performing the exact same move or that he was forming on the night of the accident and they the evidence shows that  thousand multi engine hours in september of two thousand and five truck successfully completed thirty three hours of extremely thorough recurrent twin engine instrument proficiency a class simulator standard setter we have akutan went through the same training at class and also at r t c which i'm going to talk about and then you know what it consists of and in fact there's testimony in the record that mr levinson called mr litter field prior to the day this accident to ask mr littlefield what he thought of bob as to target and and mr littlefield said he was a fine pilot he would make a fine pilot so he did check up and he did know what about the systems well with regard to that the next issue that the next training that he had was it recurrent training r t c that specific course was specifically designed for m transition he was already a multi engine aircraft rated pilot and actually was already f a a approved to fly this particular aircraft but he went above and beyond and he flew he went to the o t c it was specifically designed to transition him to this specific make model of aircraft to transition him into a four hundred and twenty one a cessna for twenty one b aircraft that's what this this training was consisted of and mr babbitt who was his instructor at the time we have testimony that he was that talked about truck making st approaches he was diligent competent profession in these maneuvers that he had no concerns with turf lying knew that he went through the air to see training the defendants knew he successfully completed the r t c training and the defendants knew having been gone through the same training themselves what that training consisted of and mr b this is an f a a certified trainer who specific job is to transition this pilot into this particular aircraft and he says that mr turk was competent at the time to fly this aircraft this is we should stop right here because according to the f a a certified pilot training program that he completed before this accident he was competent and he was he was qualified to fly this airplane and that's what the defen furthermore he went further in in the week before the accident mr levinson who was also a c f i certified flight instructor and spent five hours of instruction time with terk perform all of these the friday before the monday of the accident and he testified that he had no problems with mr turton performance based upon that there's no question there's no evidence st of all that mr turk was in any way unqualified or incompetent to fly this aircraft but the nd prong there's absolutely even if there is a question affect with regard to that level of of element there is absolutely no question that the defendants mr levinson and mr knutson were unaware of any un qualification or in i i think i'm just a little bit over right now i again i don't want to impede on my colleagues time or your time if there's any other questions i'd be happy to take and if not i'll a sit down thank you thank you very much corporation corporations a defendant nancy people people i represent one of those defendants i have brought up some charts that from documents that exist in the record that i'd like to talk about right away because i'd like to get to some your questions i'd actually with mr juror five hours in the plane the very plane and concluded those five hours of flights and the reason we know is five is because they were adding it up to equal five and they wanted to equal five in the actual airplane because significant question effect because this is what the defendants would have thought this was what the defendants would have known had they looked in his log book and indeed i'm absolutely positive they talked to about it because this is the type of thing they would have done how can i say that because truth is w he said he had it he did have it had they looked at the log book and we don't know if they did or didn't but they would have seen is what this says right here is that according to the vice research you were if they document sixty one dish ninety one age paragraph seven i have that is a record that had the exact things in the record it says he must complete three hours of flight training or to complete his buy a little flight review there it is right here ok he did it three hours as soon as logbook so he every two years so every twenty four months you must have it so this makes a timely he would absolutely have those at the time he did have it and was in his logbook interest nucleon the same page right here is another dorsett that the pilot had which they would have seen if they looked sit in mr knutson would not have access to these documents but they would know this what takes place there because they did it themselves but i'm here to show you in the records are all the landings that took your flight review how are you doing on your landings how are you doing on instrument flying proficiency the three subjects that's all it will to be accomplished here the reason it is is because that flight training device is f a flight training device but it has to be f a a prove this with comply with the requirements that's the kind of facility they sent to ok he went there this is why in their mind they thought he was eminently qualified training so and i want to get particular to the other question you raised mr justices with respect to don't they need to have some knowledge of an issue with respect to what because my  ok it doesn't mean you made a mistake someone doesn't mean you we all make mistakes i wish to make mistakes but you're looking for is incompetent reckless or unlicensed therefore you should not trust the point is something that you have to see you don't become incompetent if you made one mistake you become incompetent because you keep making mistakes you're indicating you're woefully out prepare there's no evidence of that in this case the evidence is the opposite of the case i have a good analogy for you wouldn't regard you frequently sit in judgement of lower level trial court judges they make mistakes sometimes you say they made a we're talking about vicarious liability no they need you need to be incompetent ok let's talk about the specific thing he did wrong here if it's which we know it to be true taking the plaintiff's evidence that he got too slow and therefore five hours statistically from his logbook which is indirect or we know that in those five hours it was three flights in those three flights the st one has a set of seven landings in one  that's what's involved in this case where he to the point speak control problems with terms i'd like to read from his experts one of his opinions they think is particularly on point m lawrence opinion number nine which was stricken says in his opinion what happened mr turner either titan is turn to the point that he entered an approach turn stall he turned to sharp recognize the imminent danger posed by his poor approach to landing also he does not want to ask for assistance from the man he was sea seeking to impress so he continued the approach and whether he simply slow  fall below stall speed or pull the airplane into approached or install the results were the same ok this was stricken by the trial court because of course what he's doing here is he's putting himself in the mind of the pilot and giving explanations of what he was thinking this is exactly why he was stricken he's doing this because this is what is necessary this is what's missing and you're attempting to do it but they can't but the really need to know is why did he get slow it's what you asked you sit with didn't failure have my currency that lead him to get too slow it doesn't seem like it would be visibly black that but the truth is that doesn't lead to you getting to slow why did he get to slow why did he turn too sharp or even cases likely that he would do that there's no evidence of that in this case because the evidence is the opposite the evidence is on this subject traffic patterns speak control turning know why he got to slow but additionally because they don't have evidence that we have some concern in advance that we should have had about the way he was fly we had all kinds of evidence that was flying well particularly the type of a toxic it is apparently he went over the railing and fell about a couple stories and was killed later it was found out that the railing was too low really was also be forty two dollars inches tall and was only thirty six dollars inches tall there was an expert in expert testified that because the really was too low and because of the height and weight of the gentleman who was actually it did not provide sufficient barrier for him to go over this is the violation this is the thing that was wrong and he didn't know exactly why he went over but he said my opinion defeat the plaintiff in this case on the basis that st of all the expert did not know why he went over precisely the same circuit he's the expert does not know why he got to slow the expert does not know why he stalled there's not an experienced pilot i mean that is a more generic thing to just say you're not experienced but that would tend to lead you to be concerned with any number of things if they're just simply our experience i know you debate whether he was experience be isn't that enough to give them some idea that if something goes amiss up there he's knocking people handling i don't know if it's going to necessarily speed or distance from the ground or angle and of course i'm well over my skis now trying to talk about airplane stuff but you know could could could just be a more general concern that you know he's doesn't have the training in the experience in conference to be able to handle something if something goes wrong i think that the answer to your question on that is to st i would say it would  enough to know that he's a competent when he's operating officer and you say how much what should they know i i believe that if they have sufficient evidence that he's not competent in this airplane that of whatever make a decision about that judge you might be incompetent it's not something you're going to do by the same analogy so yes i think there can be unrelated but it would have to be to the point of becoming incompetent that you believe he's incompetent because that's what that's what happens requires is that you can't just make a mistake you have to be to the one we would have what if they put him on the plane and he'd never had any training at all so he didn't have any evidence of competence with him doing wrong he just had been trained and you let him on the plane late failure be prepared but yes i think that could be true but the difference here is that's nothing like what we have here because they really do few things number one they really believe he was prepared because of the pacific schooling that's specific to the point and the five hours of observing him afterwards in the play so five hours of observing him after he comes out of the school of school is only twenty days before we give them the the belief that he is going to all pilots are taught that you don't always just go into every kind of weather all kinds of circumstances one of the things you're taught to become a pilot particularly become an instrument pilot a traveling pilot in a very well regarded traveling airplane which you already own if you have to know your own limitations so your limitations are today i'm tired of not going to take on that difficult a flight today i don't feel well i don't think i'm going to do that flight today i don't feel well so i think i'm to limited to only daytime because night times are these things are i was decide all the time and there's a lot of regulations that require him to think like that as well so the fact that possibly he may not be in that totally as good as a pilot who had three hundred hours on the airplane that doesn't mean he's not competent to operate the airplane it's up to him to decide what kind of flight he's ready for what kind of flight he's not ready for what i think the point is trying to do here when he talks about the specifics of this  individual flight they make the decisions adequately adapted to this point because what he's done so i believe that yes he could be less experience than if he had three hundred dollars but then it's up to him to make that decision only thing i think you mention is the specific yes the reason a specific is not is required is because they would have to see something that makes them be concerned about the safety that then was the cause so they would have to say oh we shouldn't give him the airplane because he's likely to be unsafe ok seeing a pilot make a takeoff that you don't agree with that doesn't make a pilot and say see a pilot right brakes which was discussed that has been used for two years or three years earlier at another time doesn't make a pilot on say seeing something that makes you concerned about the pilot and then ignoring that then you could negligently trust them in then if that had to causation so i think your question about specific is relevant to i would say yes it is to be specific because it could be to you're always behind your plane which it dealt with the begin with but it's not like that the need to see something specific a good example would talk about this turn thin again then he did it again and that was the cause of the crash there's a specific the big b have a different consequence in this case but he's saying he thinks this is the cause of the crash landing and i look at it he thinks this is the cause of the crash and yet there's nothing anywhere your honor say inexperience is one of the elements of negligent entrustment and i don't think it rises to the level of having to identify this pacific manner in which piloting inexperience plays out no that they're going to cause an accident by you either driving too fast or running a red bright or not use in a turn signal so i don't think the piece of it is that specific that these defendants would have hit to foreseen the perceived smee enter in which an experience would have played out to cause this crash same with if you're under a draw unlicensed you still shouldn't be given a there's no testimony from any witness about the wings program or the majority of those documents they have no expert that has ever talked about the import or meaning so i just you know people regardless of what simulator training he had in by the way there's certainly testimony that the simulators are not good craft specific and also all these simulator owners said that they do not certify that a pilot is competent they simply certify he completed the program so that's important then none of them are don't believe it yet because we've we've been sure that his inability his lack of keeping current keeping current i guess you say is there some indication is it some connection made between since being on qualifying to fly the plane that's why they have the currency requirements to make sure they're up to date he was not qualified to be the pilot in command that's the testimony of our expert so that's the reason judge and just a couple less points this mr turner only had thirty two hours in a cessna he only had five hours where without a flight instructor and then came two or three days before the crash and the reason levinson was given the five hours was because he couldn't even qualify for insurance coverage without getting that so this was true it is not in the end with any significant amount and we've been over it but i i think there's enough evidence that when he is not qualified to be the pilot in command there's at least a genuine issue of fact as to whether he should have been given this plane and effect if he had not been given the plane he's never flying it and it never crashes and for this reason judge we think there is sufficient evidence to have precluded the granting of summary judgment precluded striking our expert opinions we would ask that those rulings be reversed in the case be remanded for trial on the merits unless you have other questions i think your honors for your time thank you