judgment grant says you know or review de novo and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in my party's favor as they should have been at the trial court level what we have is a product the product is this order picker and more specifically it has some holes on the mast and this is where it's important the mask has two sides to it on what we'll call side a of the mast there's electrical cords electrical completely our experts said that shows that this product was designed effectively from the time it left the manufacturer up until the time with this particular injury because there was not sufficient attention t up on some actual factual witness observations william mcmorris an employee of caterpillar logistics on the scene said there at the time of the accident no parts were missing he looked at the hoses he did not see where on the hose there's nowhere note here what he did see was stretching on the hose as at page four of the six only two records he said these hoses appeared to be whole the park like they had been stretched and he indicates that it looked rough it looked read it in and even he also maybe there's also krista mayo's why old testimony she examined the hose after the incident one have been she described cracking on the outer surface of the hose but this cracking she testified was consistent with a holding action those are the factual predicates that our expert mr  relied upon when more than his opinion additionally mr kay said there are some other factors that are very consistent with his opinion on how this accident occur the links of the hose the links to the host as if you  incident would have been exactly as one would have expected if the order taker was at the level the plate that testified he was working at at the time this occur additionally the spray pattern what the plaintiff testified to as the knowing where the latter i believe turned out missing there were photographs of the latter there are other cases that rely similarly up on the testimony of witnesses in this case we have three witnesses who testified they saw the product after the incident all the holes and they all three testified back and there are witnesses there not playing a friendly they were controlled as you can tell from the record by other defendants in this case those three testified that circumstantial evidence case as to what caused it who is to fail and in that type of case the was clear that the plaintiff must present evidence that there was no abnormal use of the product and that there were no reasonable secondary causes of the failure here the plaintiff can't present that evidence because the record is filled with evidence of abnormal uses misuses negligent maintenance and in fact the plaintiffs themselves alleged rot the plaintiffs own expert in this case stated in his report that it was conceivable that the hose could have hardened with age to begin any cracks so rather than presenting evidence of no speculative expert affidavit the expert couldn't testify with any certainty as to what caused the hose to failure because he didn't have the hose to inspect he didn't even have the hose bracket which was adjacent to the hose to inspect on condition here this is a circumstantial evidence in addition to the plaintiff's expert never explains how the order picker could have operated for over fourteen hundred machine hours without any kind of failure  he never explains why the who's in this case according to him suddenly jumped the holy when it'd been working fine for over three years instead were last with the case where there is abundant evidence of other causes sanchez case which we saw in our brief now it was a tire failure case where the plaintiff drove three thousand miles after the tire to have been changed without an incident and that tire tube was not available core summary judgment so we would ask the court in this case based on all of the other evidence of other possible causes abnormal use and the  have evidence that tends to negate other causes or have a proper expert affidavit and that's the key or part have a proper expert affidavit in this case i won't go over everything again the expert affidavit was proper it was never a challenge what defendant seeks to do here and i think he caught himself made argument talking about what that we didn't prove asking us for instance to prove that goes don't exist that's sort of an argument the logical fallacies that we were taught of in the sanchez case no witness ever saw that inner tube unlike this case were three witnesses saw all the hoes and testified extensively to their recollections of the holes that it look scratch and the cracks that that helps alluded to is what i indicated earlier in this mail testified there were cracks that looked like something had been stretched that's the evidence that's here it's different from sanchez where no one saw the inner tube so no one could tell how inner tube fail this kid scans on its own legs distinguishable from sanchez we have a proper expert affidavit we should not to defeat her judgment we should not be required to prove our case to the exclusion of all