now regarding another issue in the case if i may in essence doesn't your position come down to your using the fall itself to demonstrate that somehow somewhere there was negligence here in other words how was an accident the equivalent of an allegation of negligence and on the phone plus the circumstantial evidence of the plank not being attached to letters t testimony no evidence with respect to that i think that's the part that's for the jury decide because the plan doesn't have to prove that the summary judgment stage and if i go back to distinguishing the stress case the stress kids see  a gentleman with how the shoes fell on the stairs there was nothing that indicated what was wrong with the stairs in this case we do know that there were things wrong with the scaffolding system so that's a very different situation  for which i think that i need evidence of that with respect to how the plane was positioned but there was nothing securing it there when you could see the winners after the fall on the plank separate from the letters that is best different from  the distress case where there was no evidence of anything being wrong with the stairs and mr stress had medical costs that could've contributor cost in the fall of the first place and i think it's more similar to the cases of presented circumstantial evidence to support the plan though whether you get to argue this is all hypothetical and speculation because until you find out how the letter came apart or how this individual fell and injured himself this is all happened not just in the hypothetical not in the abstract to see the violation by the piece with the steers the you know the railings missing rigid there's an irregular differential or something maybe that's true it could all be true but you for the benefit of the defense ruled each one of those potential things out so we're really left with well what's the explanation why did this happen and you have another admission right i do pose the emergency room doctor tension or a brief dr parr she's the one who was talking to him right after the accident when he was taking a leader in general and his report to her which is an admission i lost my balance and fell and it makes perfect sense if we think about what he's doing he's he's standing on a surface that's maybe fourteen or fifteen feet off the ground and he's about six feet tall so he can reach out and and work on the plaster ceiling line in this this two story home is an office space for europe and he says when this happens he's looking off so i imagine when he's doing he's standing on this plane looking off like this and he's so many feet off the ground it makes perfect sense that he loses his balance and falls and tips this over and that's that's really what he's left us with because the theories about how this happened maybe it came apart this will be felt for this reason that this is all hypothetical this is all in the abstract and there's really nothing for a jury to do i mean ordinarily causation is a question for the jury when you have competing science when you have competing testimony but they know him didn't hear they don't have a saw and in miscible source of information to give their competing version in front of the jurors basically in order to accomplish what the plaintiffs want to accomplish in order covered here they would have to ask the  almost by the fall i don't think i put it to him that when i think mine if i'm remembering correctly my question to him was what do you remember up to the point of the fall i think he terms of are you having trouble remembering events prior or anything that has developed since the possible head injury to the point in the deposition or i asked him if he's any trouble in general information on is there a reason that that should have been considered gem and the motion to reconsider and absolutely and work what is it is for one minute we have a structure in place that says if you are going to judgment this is how you do it the trial judge can't can't go around the loop twice we can't have the trial judge give this package of information pursuant to rule one ninety one rule and need more time and i'm praying to this that there were times tensions but not for experts there were time extensions for the brief it was originally standing it was instead of thirty days to respond if it was forty five days to respond then there was some is one item if you don't even get to the merits of the summary judgment if they're saying we need mr bird's testimony in order to make a prima facia case in order to show reasonable certainty we're entitle to damages somehow only just it was whether unethical is necessary or not and especially when you look at what the expert said the expert refers back to the same facts that i had noted about taking the photos i took of the letters at the conclusion as a reasonable person and that's why you have to look at the circumstantial evidence that everything collapsed everything collapsed according to my expert because the things were a set up right but even based upon circumstantial evidence everything collapsed because it was grade well everything collapsed it was a knife that or are we talking about simultaneously again i come back to the point the question you asked earlier about did the collapse happen