the four options in front of it that might increase the differ a very different result the evidence here i mean is there anything in the verdict they would show some confusion i think the i think the evidence i think the very fact that they were not that the it was an improper jury instruction as a matter of law and that the instructions themselves didn't give them a choice it would have a choice or one against the other for you before the other against the watch and the fact that there was that they should have been given the choice they weren't i think is precious enough to the jury on the evidence here i mean as in all places that's i'd like to know about how how how was the a defendant the jury should have been given given the option to decide that no one met their burden of proof that you know that both parties have lost and that's where the prejudice to mr miles away you're basically arguing that this is a structural or this certainly i mean it's you know as if it's an error of a legal air that the jury was required to have these four options put in front of them make this decision they didn't have that option and therefore he has standing and this court has certainly has the authority to to order trial this case and i just want to let me turn to the remit or argument the  for too much evidence of economic loss of his job history or history it wasn't simply evidence that enjoyed working in his job he enjoyed working with his hands it went beyond that was i started the shop swept floors i learned the machinery shows that there should be a limit that the planet can't tell his side of the story he can tell pekin tell his side of the story and i understand that he can i mean it's the jury's job to sort out what pocket we're going to put all these damages you know some of this is going to be lost or what the damages are one thing to you know decide which bucket each of these this testimony can go to show damages but at a certain point you can't put have everything in every bottle in the same time the jury has to separate out and given that most discrepancy between the loss of normal life damages and the damages for pain and suffering for future future medical care the only conclusion we can reach is that the jury was double this jury did not understand that they you know that you can't down two issues before the court one having to do with the jury instructions the other one having to do with the loss of normal life we believe that as to bill there were waivers of those that that was really an either or proposition in the jury instructions that is simply not the case they proposed a jury instruction b twenty one the third which is a burden of proof jury instruction and this is really where all the problem arises that particular struction that they st consolidation of two independent lawsuits in addition there was one plaintiff and two defendants in the miles lawsuit it was just inappropriate now there were aspects of  instruction that were really given and were proposed by us in our work forty five in the one instruction which which talks about it's the attraction and the use of verdict for was no restriction on how they could use those forms they had before all options that counsel yes i did mean for a big back exactly what the defendant wanted in this case because it's rough we want within each case in addition to that instruction the court gave a free one all for instruction which also online it really has a size to the to the jury that the if you find four ball players you can assess damages separately and return for x separately for each rock there is no question in this case that everyone everyone pretty much agrees to these instructions the koran be very clear about this they were the court was very careful everyone that that was very careful about these instructions we wanted this jury advi motions the all stated bet loss of the normal right be reduced this is request to one million dollars for the reasons we have stated in our prayers there is the issue before you and it is clearly not an abus career that began for andre shriver when he was young man worked for his father they did find work in the sport room air and he's level and he did it from the time he was a teenager working there in the factory when he was twelve years old that was part of his life as a play out of his life and there's really i guess no regular that in fact it was it was part of the case particular issue as to relink damages the court stated pretty clearly that it's reserved for the trial or fact the appellate court will not substitute its  supreme court with that with that to her language in our particular case the last normal life we request of a jury twenty twenty five million dollars which we felt was appropriate they cut that down and almost forty years into the future life expectancy that he will go through life as a paraplegic there was on contested testimony that his disability will increase testimony experts as to the ability to work yes there is expert testimony in this case that the experts couldn't even agree as to whether it was even possible to reconstruct traffic lights from his care for the rest of his life i think that just as you know brings up the point that he had been tricked compensated just a shot for past or future medical care we're not appealing that decision and if they're adding medical care to loss of normal life that's