good morning on face court karen larson on behalf of mr molina and i would like to reserve some time for rebuttal your honour's we want our jury verdict back or at least a new trial i think the judge in this particular case tried very hard to implement proper jury instructions and so forth but i think by ignoring the response to question number six she ignored the obligation of the judge as set forth by this court in different cases even floyd versus lloyd she may have been able to ignore maybe three but six the jury was not told to ignore question sex they came back with a response and right before the jury returned with a verdict there certainly are you'll be the first one who ever said i spoke to our softly i think that joy note number f concerning special instruction number twenty four was a clear signal that the jury intended to water damage and that they found against the defendants in fact instruction twenty think you harmonize it if you if you take number two as establishing that the affirmative defense has been established then you don't have damages right now  trial ok well she determined that it was what they intended to do she determined she asked them is this what you want to she said yes she reasoned that was their answer and if the rest was surplus that was an incorrect she ramifications was that if they said yes he would have been fired anyway he don't have to know the ramifications they just have to answer the question is for the judge to decide what the ramifications of those answers are ok there is a crucial consideration here that the foregoing discussion hasn't brought into bear it resolves many of the concerns the panel hats and the finding of special rocketry number to show that the appellate would have been then maybe that's one way don't i said that that could be a way to harmonize it if you had to harmonize it however as a matter of law you do not and there's the foundation for that conclusion is this distinction that's what they're thinking will give this guy something but not everything is the fact that in the damage arguments investor a lot more money than five hundred that it's got is correct your honor and that could be a way to harmonize the verdict if the verdict required harmonization but however that's a i'm sorry owner let me tell you a little story justice douglas used to tell a story that justice black inconsistent you can't do then come back and deliberate some more so they went back and they said well it's not guilty and he can keep  all that was you know then let the jury wanted to do we know here that the jury wanted to give damages well no no your honor we don't and i'll tell you why we don't because the jury verdict form one did not submit a general verdict to the jury to the form perhaps should have but did not include in it stop here language and express instruction not to reach question sex and  then rob dettori number three answers yes to the question of whether there has been injury suffered and light of the finding on want the stock your instruction attached to to do so as if you to the express stop your instruction of the court requires the court to treat the improperly address questions as mere surplusage how do we know which when they answered if i mistake how do we know they didn't intend to say you're due you answered yes to two he answered yes to three you can't answer both yes they go back and let us know which one is which is the correct one that that is correct because she was concerned and articulate at this on the record that she had coexist as you've answered them change your answer to her change or answer three you know her go fix it well she could have but there was the rest i just articulated it i suppose there's a debate about how severe the risk is what you perceive there to be a risk what's the risk authorities simply a series of factual propositions to the jury the propositions the factual propositions themselves were not inconsistent it is simply not inconsistent on the one hand to say the plaintiff stablished a cause of instruction and after discussing various possibilities on how to deal with the problem the trial court decided that what she needed to determine was whether or not the foremost correctly filled out and represented the verdict of the jury and once that well and if that was established then it became a matter for her to review and interpret the special verdict form apply the factual findings to the to the apply coble law at the end of the day the jury found it right here where the judge said this including appellants counsel urging their construction of the events the judge decided that the best course of action was simply to affirm that the jury of the special verdict form reflected the answers to the questions posed as the jury intended and at that thereafter it was her job as a matter of law to apply those answers to the lot of the term and what the ultimate outcome of the case what's finally  of action without the sort of inconsistency that invokes the rule of gallic one could never safely employ a special verdict form where there are affirmative defenses such a contradiction the potential for contradiction there is virtually legitimate part of the part number six is a legitimate part of the verdict there is no way you can throw that out the jury awarded damages it's interesting for public counsel to