and perhaps with some other instructions regarding evidentiary rulings and jury instructions the verdict in this case in favor of the defendant was against the manifest weight of the evidence in this case and the evidence is i will point out facts were chilled that the verdict of the jury in this case was not only arbitrary and on reasonable but it was not based upon the evidence in this case at the plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of this accident now there was a difference in opinion as to the plaintiffs treaters and the defense expert as to the extent of the injuries our trader said he planned to sustain ridicul injuries there was nothing to contradict that so while the jury does have discretion to decide whether someone is injured if all the evidence in the case shows them proves that she was injured this is the damages that were caused by this accident and you can't just disregard all the evidence and just come up with some arbitrary decision and that's why i posit in damages in this case should have been directed there's absolutely no way injury kind of found against the point on either one of those issues they had actually no evidence refute that a jury cannot hear evidence from both sides the plaintiff and defendant and then come up with a decision saying law there was no injuries that's that's just disregarding totally all the evidence in the case and of course that would be an arbitrary verdict at the trial that she was stopped at a red light at this intersection for five to seven seconds completely stopped and then she was remanded obviously that's one hundred percent negligence on the part of the plan now here's the signs as a lawyer and it's kind of cheesy to keep in the facts because i know the defendants will argue that all these versions were contradictory and there's contradicting evidence in the jury could weigh one version versus the other are however in this case if you take either version the defendant is in the accident but the plaintiff says she did not make a sudden stop and has a master shot that's not relevant as well first of all the defendant says that she's traveling with her witness there are sixteen seventeen year old girls driving around the perimeter of the model looking for vehicle and if she didn't think that that was enough stopping distance or room she should have stayed back that was all within her control no explanation as to why she did is they went to two cars behind the fence and the witness the passenger  defendant testified that this accident occurred just a little bit with a one stop on so again how this is not a case where there are some cases out there were some was perhaps driving on a highway and slams on their brakes for some one reason well you know people are going fifty or fifty miles per hour and nor is expecting this was before entering an intersection in fact it was still at pretty much at the white line of the white stop line this isn't the case where your car traveled through the intersection and then busy intersection at rush hour at this time there might be the echoes that are continue to come through the intersection there might be pedestrians there might be bicyclists and in fact the lead vehicle has a duty before entering the intersection to let the intersection clear before proceeding forward just because the light turns green that doesn't mean you just drive into an intersection you have to let it clear so if the way turns green again that's why i see the light being green doesn't matter  its let's flip that around with another paragraph the plaintiff has a duty to be free from negligence when the tunnel three was also used in this case and that was an issue that was key in this case negligence and that just highlighted the put more of a duty i believe argument in a being presented either one not being paid to the extent that they were paid there was not an adequate funding asian of any testimony to related to this accident and soon thirty four thousand dollars and paid medical bills and their request at the time of it it is it just is known as the record contains any evidence to support the jury's decision and must be affirmed here you cannot say that there is no evidence in support of the jury's decision or that defendant who stated that the plane to move forward she did not see any trucks coming along the light was green and she suddenly brought the action stopped which caused them surprise and they had to stop as well you against the manifest weight of the us as we stated a moment ago as a symbol of the there is an aggressive defense made in this case towards the aspect of contributory negligence we think that the defendant the testimony that was presented to the court it clearly showed that there was evidence that could sway in the favor of the fund and that's where the ditch here and and if there's any evidence that would support the decision that was sixty five seventy six where the discussion in the jury instruction conference was had with the judge regarding the special instruction and you'll read these ten pages of that there were i was going back and forth with the trial judge urging him to use especially right of tory because i didn't want to run into the situation where we get a verdict and not know if that was based on causation damages or negligence because again we believe because they shouldn't damages should have been directed and the only issue to go to a jury would have been negligence i know it sounds counsel pointed out that the jury came back with goals and that we find the play the majority of falls that means she gets all damages and i think what happened in this case is it went to deliberate late on a friday afternoon which the child just said he was not to use to support a verdict in the case i think that's a nine issue but nonetheless you will see from the record on killfile sixty two through five seventy six how we were urging consistently that these special rights were to be given and in fact the tori i don't know what happened to it i didn't see it in your file and i didn't have it but i specifically read out the language that was on that special in iraq and tori and your honour's will see that on page twelve my reply bring your vehicle to a stop and when she's out the accident scene talking to the police how can she get a ticket for failure to reduce her speed if she was only kind of falling behind the plane and again she pled guilty to that second that trial she tried to explain away by with regards to the credibility of the plaintiff defense counsel has stood up where it is pointed to some task money that's not part of the record it never pointed out in the record on appeal and it was in there he certainly could of pointed it out and cited in his brief and he pointed out there that this wasn't a case that was on the highway in the middle of an intersection what's important here is that the plaintiff did nothing negligent what did the plaintiff do that was negligent in this case that would put her over fifty percent of the fact