however one i call it i call that count my my my common law my regular traditional negligence count there i set forth facts  police arrive at a house two o'clock in the morning with a bunch of teenagers drinking beer some of them if not all of them run out of the house and the problem with well i'm relying on the harris gallery that's the case where the our patron became intoxicated in the bar and the bar boy he's all mouth in his car subfreezing temperatures leaving this right it's it's that he knows they're out there and yet he doesn't do anything the follow up to make sure it wanted to come back or to go so the duty would be the same if they left he was an innocent events when the police arrive and people started running outside in the subfreezing home and didn't come back under three twenty one there's a duty ask that section three twenty one be looked at because i think that's more fact that's more specific to this this particular circumstance i am just in created this condition that put travis i know it's not binding on this court but that's the case involving the accident on the interstate where a car hits a motorcyclist they knock the motorcyclist off leaving money ends up on the roadwa jersey turnpike and i've driven up and down that road many times it's late at night the driver and the two passengers get out and they see the guy lying on the turnpike and do nothing and they all had cell phones in on well so that's what they did well i think if they were aware that the man was lying on the roadway because of something that had been done there and they had their cell didn't they didn't join the organization no one knew about the presence of the pipeline in excavating company at the pipelines filling all this gas in the pipeline company was found liable under three twenty one or indicated or stated that would have been a very simple thing under this rule to make one simple phone call to join this this organization so that everyone would know where that is so this is the situation we find ourselves that we might find find then you know taken the one step necessary to to correct you created a condition that condition that the death of travis perhaps one phone call would have prevent the reason we repurchased sociables liability cases is i think it's apparent from the briefs of both parties that when you look at the body of law that relates to alcohol related offense oklahoma related injuries that stem from some type of social function the courts have routinely held that there's no live believe that arises unless there is a independent duty or a voluntary undertaking and i think that's what my opponent was trying to articulate to the court i think that's the gist of the cases that we cited in our brief what our position is here in this case is that there is no special relationship there is no independent in there is no voluntary undertaking  undertaking that was conducted by by justice and that's why this case was properly dismissed i don't think it's our position is not that this is disks clearly a sofa host case it's all done said i think that is a body of law in the background that we have to focus on from which we get the exceptions for a voluntary undertaking now the one thing that concerns me when i look at this this case and look listen to the argument that were made  was a voluntary undertaking in and from what i'm hearing it seems like it was the fact that they held a party and i'm not sure that there's anything in the law that would say that a person holding a party has done it anything other than to create in the worst case a condition by which an event might take place in the was very very well subtle but it is all a person does all the fish does it provide a condition by which in others activities cause lead to harm then we don't we don't  have a duty we don't have an obligation here that's exactly what we have in this particular case when we look at the allegations of the complaint the one thing that strikes me is that everything that they're charging justin with knowledge of or reasonably  to reasonably forsee can equally be said about traps there's nothing about this that was a latent the fact there's nothing about this which is a hidden danger there was nothing about this which was something that that was discovered by for lack of better word patron and put him in a freezing it put him in a car freezing weather that persons on able to take care of themselves that is an independent act separate apart from providing alcohol and faith based upon themselves they voluntarily assume the duty to take care that individual articulated laid out a number of functions that the defense did a number of acts of the defendants did in that case where they assumed control and the court even went as far in that case to say that as alleged by the plaintiffs the defendant effectively took complete and exclusive charge of elizabeth care after she became unconscious when we look at the facts of the of this third party complaint for contribution those type of are not there yet and i guess i come back to what is the voluntary undertaking that was done here and when we look at the allegations the worst that can be said is that there was a condition created but the one who acted on those conditions in this case was trapped is the one that made the decision to flee he's the one that made the decision to flee in cold weather and he meets the one that made the decision not to come back when he realized it was cold up in those situations to say that the that justin had a duty to exercise reasonable care we just don't see anything in the law that would provide that and again i think all of the cases and look at this is what we've got an click case from pennsylvania i think really says it all why three twenty one presents a problem to us it's a very expansive it's a very open ended measure of responsibility and in the course of the court's question the good case has there's no ability to say this is a prohibited act in this is not a preview back and i think it's good points out one of the tenets of walk of tort law is that we want to try to shape people's behavior to avoid unwanted conduct in to encourage positive conduct and when i don't know what is meant by actions that posted under reasonable risk that i can't based my conduct on that type of activity i can adjust my behavior to avoid a problem if i don't well it was not social host versus me it was social hosts file for a level now it's voluntary undertaking here i have an alleged voluntary undertaking  pennsylvania actually they chose not to use three twenty one three years later the same court different version and did use three twenty one that that was the ph one call yes pipeline case