substantial evidence by which a fact finder jury could point to the t p i product as being the cause of the fire and being unreasonably dangerous for not reasonably disk of emerson was dismissed from the case and that's why the cross claim against them with your problem on appeal is that you have to be able to persuade that there's a genuine material fact here that you're with that is what to conclude that the heater was not reasonably safe or on reasonably dangerous inspected the heater he inspected the composites he in his declaration made a statement that i have done all of this and i can find no other cause for this fire no other source of energy to have a fire we have to have energy he excluded all other probable causes in the vicinity those are the facts in the record now the court said because mr reynolds said that he cleaned the heater that fall that there was no way there could have been combustion but will especially disagree with the trial court in that is used don't you have an obligation if you're suing this particular manufacturer on the allegation that this heater will function or has a effect whatever and what you have to  y what that effect is absolutely not your honor all of the washington decisions to say we have no obligation to show what the precise defect is all we have to show is that the product was not reasonably safe nexus is the energy being supplied to the heater and the heater was on the exclusion of other probable causes meets the tests that forth by the ninth circuit and the washington courts and that's been clearly made in a reasonable consumer would not expect a heater to ignite their home it's goes beyond a reasonable expectations of the ordinary washington consumer which curls the idaho consumer in the supplemental excerpts of  respect to this other model it was the term in that the fire was caused by placing a chair in front of the heater for a prolonged period of time these aren't sure just stand alone heaters there are installed as heat that's in the wall to the ordinary consumer they look like a heat statement other than saying we cannot determine what the precise nature of the cause was that's where he left it he made no conclusion about the high limit switches whatsoever do they have to show under washington law they still have to show some possibility that the product was defective it cannot it simply cannot be the rule that the last one in the chain the last item in the chain of is the only explanation that there is is that fire was coming into the heater from an outside source and being circulated through but not to cause it's well what and what might have been the so was directed to the question of the box fan and the cord as you may recall from the fast there was a box fan that was sitting in front of this wall mounted heater box found was recovered that a portion of that the electrical cord was missing our investigation was directed primarily towards that box fan and we do not believe that that was conclusively ruled out as mr lim suggests that would have prove if the issue came down to did the heater cause the fire or did the box fan cause the fire there would have been disputed but the first question is whether there is sufficient evidence that the keytar cut caused the causes have been ruled out is certainly relevant evidence tending in conjunction with other evidence that could be used to establish fault or failure in a given product it my point is that it cannot simply be that the last item in this chain of investigation is automatically presumed if there is no evidence that can support a failure of the heater itself way or misfunction even malfunction in a way that could result in the sequence of events that is testified to having them observed we have to accept mrs reynolds testimony and indeed it's point theory that fire emanated started in this heater itself fire requires an ignition source and it requires a combustible material there is no evidence of combustible material even if you assume some kind of failure and there's no evidence of the failure but even if you assume that there is no evidence of combustible material and it's not for lack of opportunity mr levy certainly could have examined all the record shows that there could have there was more than ample time to have a look built up which provides the combustibility required to cause ignition with respect to other heaters it presupposes that all the heaters have the same problem or that are exposed to the same level of dirt or lint built up which is not necessarily so the answer to the questions posed by the court was set forth in washington law recently in two thousand and  that if the product did not perform in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the user of the product failed under conditions concerning which an average consumer of the product could have three only to find expectations then the jury would have a basis for making an informed judgment upon the existence i respectfully disagree with opposing counsel in that we have excluded the other energy sources that is a foundational requirement under washington law and under federal law as it interprets the laws we have satisfied that require me through the testimony mr lim that's unequivocal honest exploration i have examined other causes he said and i have excluded other causes the argument as presented to the trial court in his continuing to be presented is begging the question of whether or not a plaintiff has a duty of identifying a specific defect and that has been answered in the negative for the past twenty plus years and consequently the plaintiff has provided substantial evidence upon which a fact finder can determine that the experts can act the experts are excluded other sources of ignition in this area the eyewitnesses which are rare in this field have seen the fire coming from the heater that's very persuasive this not being within the realm of reasonable expectations of the consumer thank you thank you