counts and then later on them in the proceedings rendered a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defend my client was proceeding on route ninety five controlled access highway and the under road the event the tractor trailer which was d parked on the shoulder of n and and thereby caused the collision my client's vehicle was traveling in the same direction as we  construed evidence in a manner which was not the standard thing is supposed to be construed in in a manner most favorable to my well i think we can just ignore it let me let me ask again as kids i mean as i understand the district court's holding its analysis is under connecticut law contributory negligence can be a question of  when the conduct of a person like your client is so manifestly contrary to that of a reasonably prudent person that the jury can reach but one conclusion on the comparative negligence of the two parties and so it was your client drinking that it was with at the heart of the summary judgment assessed assessment so given the toxicology report the expert report in the in the record and the surrounding circumstances how the how did the court err on that what what  your point are you saying that it's not a question of who did the worse thing it's a question that goes to who's next negligence is more responsible for the disastrous outcome if that's when you're making and that leads to a puzzling d point because junction being casual intentionally parking is vehicle without putting out any aren't the lights a red herring i mean if he's an if your driver is an errant vehicle whether because of black ice or drunkenness or whatever it wouldn't matter if the truck was lit up like a christmas tree and if he's asleep or he skids and is out of control he's going to hit the truck the problem is where the truck is it seems to me and what we're so we're talking about is both things at least assuming that mr jenkins is drinking was responsible for his becoming out of control of the vehicle and hitting the side of the road and everything that follows that his drunken this is cause and if the truck weren't there maybe he would have been injured or maybe he would have at some point again hit the side of the road in a way that caused some damage but would certainly not have been as bad if the truck weren't there and by the same token if the truck was district court's decision that are on appeal today were correct and we respectfully request that this court affirm that as the court knows there are two separate decisions before this court with respect to the standard thirty day timeframe under rule for a just consider order to any of the exceptions to that jurisdictional requirement and it was not filed until after the summary judgment motion was granted  some eighteen or nineteen months later in the case and even if found that it did have jurisdiction over that portion of the appeal it's nonetheless manifestly clear that the district court's order  was correct and should be should be affirmed or course decision granting the defendant's motion to dismiss was based upon the fundamental distinction that connecticut cited for that is debate versus irish and what the court did in applying this that particular distinction to the allegations that were set forth in the  amended complaint was fine that they did not come anywhere close to meeting the plausibility standard in ask under ashcroft and the court drill down to the basic factual allegations  or that the you know once you set aside all the conclusions that are not entitled to any deference the facts that were alleges that mr ken well parked on the shoulder didn't activate as hazards and then put out a warning which would not come close to what's required for alleging reckless conduct we also just respectfully submit that the court's decision granting the defendant most for summary judgment was proper and should be affirmed the court  me even if there were duty in it was breached the plaintiff could not meet the required element of causation and in all candor the district court could have granted the defendant's motion on any of those three theories the court  based decision on the comparative negligence arguments and did not address proximate cause what legal duty but we respectfully submit that the decision could have been rendered on all three of those trials what we have is your honor this is one of the situations which just court has acknowledged exists in that cases certain types of negligence cases where the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that even questions of negligence can and should be resolved as a matter of law this the district court we respectfully submit was correct in finding that this case was such a case the evidence here was so overwhelming one sided favor the defendants there's no genuine issue of material fact that was established by the plaintiff in support of his claims and the district court correctly pointed out not only did the record not corroborate the plaintiff testimony as to how this accident occurred but every other portion of the record directly contradicted the point of spurgeon of events and this goes to the point that's been brought up by this court in numerous cases jeffrey's versus city of new york the decision offered by judge for braniff i believe in two thousand and five is often cited for this that a party cannot their own uncorroborated unsubstantiated evidence create a genuine issue of material fact and that's what happened here that's what the plants are attempting to do here in the court correctly found that they were not successful every item of evidence from the plane of own statements to the state trooper at the scene that he fell asleep at the wheel he also referenced to hospital personnel that he must have lost consciousness he the trooper made independent observations that he pointed reeked of alcohol the plaintiff mentioned to hospital personnel they get seven drinks and those are just the cleanest own statements personnel at the scene and the hospital and also the and when the testing on the plan of blood was done a hospital when you were versus trapper eight from that time back to when the plaintiff was actually drinking that it probably took upwards of thirteen drinks not three as planned by the plant but thirteen to achieve the point ninety three that was measured several hours after the accident when blood was drawn to the hospital so we can have an rebutted evidence from an expert that that directly contradicts the planet's claims likewise the defendant disclosing included for the court consideration on summary judgment a report of a weather expert who stated that it is highly likely based on the atmosphere conditions the weather that existed at the time that the traveling would have been ice free at the time of this accident and also in that regard you're ours we did secure an  affidavit from the chief keef's mallette he's with the cross fire department that he didn't have any problems with ice and he actually along with terrorists who responded to the scene those gentleman actually had to you're probably familiar  deputy chief stated that they had any problems rice whatsoever so those are just some of the items of evidence that directly contradicts the district court found directly from trick that the plaintiffs testimony concerning l the plaintiff brought up the issue apparent vehicles with respect to your large and this morning that there's no case anywhere how we went into the way station looking for a parking spot they were all full so we parked on the shoulder and during the course of the time he was there there were other trucks there and so even if mr jenkins when he fell asleep but wielder being a into a tractor trailer it might have it in front of the castle rear goal or to the rebound off the ice and go back into the road where strikes another passenger vehicle or a retaining wall something like that it's lation which is not permitted in terms of determining whether or not cars in fact i'm you satisfied let alone proximate cause here we respectfully submit that even if mr caswell actions parking where he could be found to be negligent the overwhelming negligence on the part of mr jenkins severed any causal connection between mr casuals negligence and the accident itself our truck being there was simply a condition not a proximate cause thank you your honors thank you mr kennedy will take the matter under advisement thank you both for your argument