continued to instruct feeling after the completion of delivery on the return leg what did they instruct him to do or what control of a gamble for him on the return leg you seem to see that the return leg is still covered by an agency relationship a trip it's not just the front part of the delivery but the trip also it's the return and once an agency relationship is created we invent it ends that it continues for the whole trip try to obtain a load from some company other than the one that had sent him originally to tulsa so that he could be sure to back to ohio his home terminal rather than dead all the way home so i believe that under those circumstances is similar in that the truck driver in front in st paul likewise have the ability to accept a load from any other carrier to get it back to ohio but when it couldn't it in the accident happened and the court ruled that he was still part of the initial trip which was an assignment to go from pennsylvania to tulsa oklahoma he asked you this you s destination to make a delivery you also are going to be coming back and that would be part and parcel of the same trip and you were in when the truck driver reaches his home base or his home i'd like to  the negligent act of him and she was in the decision made to hire a trucking are expert with the morton testify that is a broker you have an obligation to investigate the background of your truck companies that you hire to make sure that they are safe trusts and if they operate safely that they're going to be able to deliver the goods s field to adequately investigate the background of a truck and this pointed out in the record that if such an investigation had been done they would have found through federal websites that ea truck had at least four violations within fifteen months prior to the accident driving too many hours and falsifying time records and our expert mr mor it testifies that on this trip from texas to woodstock mr vo once again drove too many hours he violated the hours in service regulations and he falsified his time records the very then based on his hours of driving had to be rested for ten more hours before he could legally take the road and he did not he left the pickle factory after at best maybe getting five or six the hours and time of history of falsifying its time records and that that very same thing was done again and was a contributing factor in an accident so it's our position that supervision or otherwise when you've completed the job and harmed by my negligent hiring is dissipated bori continues for some period of time again i come back because you're not just hired to go for that and there's an expectation that you will return so that in the negligent hiring continues that as long as the trip is still going was required to do then there would be no causation because he had at that point at least comply or is he's going down the road if he pulls over and sleeves for ten hours so he's no longer in violation of the regulations and also not the t v then then they were not the proximate cause pushchair as you point out we have a different scenario is that he was fifteen minutes from leaving the pickle factory and we believe that the without any injury to anyone did produce from point a to point b without injury albeit there might have been some deviation from standard practices that were committed during that tramp transport were responsible for what happened during the period of the performance of the act that you contracted for simply because a person somewhere after that contract is performed is not your doing ago you said that i believe i understood when the contract and in other words i hired you to complete a contract who wants to contract is completed the hiring is done that the cases talk about spill there has to be an addition of control and that's what i'm speaking of before there's been dish of control for the operation to go from independent contractor to engines and that's what i'm saying with respect to