manufacture an exposure or opinion applied to my client's facility literally out of thin air with no facts on the line day and we raise the issue of whether or not the f other companies do you do something about managing asbestos hazards that apple kitten did in other words the way to a women day hindsight i am going to present an alternative view of the trial record that will disprove the key themes of ethel's appeal theme one only undisturbed especially the set of all the ethel's appeal the negligence of strict liability tape on a daily basis while an operator in the sodium cell houses for five week period and then there was the continuous especially the spray process at all dumping burlap sacks of  it knew that exposure to a specialist containing products could cost serious lung disease and cancer the roberts court also rejected the proposition that before an employer can be held liable in negligence it needed since it needed circuit mohnish ing the trial defendant for quote splitting legal hairs when it argued similarly to ethel that no study specific to the plaintiff's job description was available at the time of the plaintiff's work and so all this talk about dr being exclusively an engineer had been a desk job that's not in accord with louisiana law it's also not in accord with the trial evidence that there is good reason why you'll study apples for c ability arguments and find no safe citation to louisiana case going its way they just don't exist same for air sampling is irrelevant ethel's appeal trivializes its failure to air sample in dr spaces but ethel's expert dr rock bases defensive ethyl on the standards of the day he said the employer learns whether it's in compliance with the standards of the day by air sampling did add did ethel have access to the instruments for air sampling dr rock told the jury yes said good industrial hygiene practice is to take information about the workplace rests and use it to reduce the risks record e permissible limit of the day was based on total duster reading record eighty three dollars to six dollars and so the fact remains relevant ethel did not air sample could have should have that true answer not from one thousand nine hundred and seventy one on no sir record eight thousand two hundred and forty five no earlier i told the court i'm here with your alternative view of the evidence because where there are two permissible views and judge fallon shows plaintiff few there is no cause to disturb negligence or strict liability rulings move on quickly to misrata judge fallon qualified ms ratterman is an expert in the field of industrial hygiene she's a certified industrial hi gests has been for decades masters of science and environmental health work for the department of labor osha which is responsible for worker safety and he from the nozzle of air guns she looked at studies of airborne fiber concentrations at two thousand and thirty and seventy five feet from the nozzle of the gun she looked at five or concentrations from the act of stripping old insulation that had been than it's still relying on mr adelman for its case against owens illinois and said gently dr rock didn't do the air modeling that ethel suggests miss ratterman had to and you know what that's ok because louisiana law does not require louisiana does not require quantitative level of exposure evidence and especially this cases that's the louisiana supreme court not just met clark speaking randall versus ankle insulation sixteen southern  sixty five strict liability a louisiana strict liability claim has three elements now limit my presentation to the focus of apple's appeal the temporary condition argument ethyl says a quote permanent defect must be found before strict liability can attach to a premises and it relies on the case of crane versus exxon for the view the problem crane didn't and no louisiana court has used the word permanent are less than per minute what the judge fallon fied not a temporary condition but rather a defective standard operating procedure at the facility that resulted in strict liability he continued created by the continuous refer to schmidt of sodium cells was not a temporary condition activity because it's dr gaddy and mr ponti who spoke as ethel testified it happened all the time it was part and parcel of the baton rouge facilities operation without constant cycle of refer bishan the sodium cell play it would cease to operate that's stuck that's just fallon's words and it's based on the trial record and so when mr b n b knew references this court to low should be par and suggests that strict liability can attach to nothing but land well it's just out of line with louisiana law frankly article two thousand three hundred and seventeen dollars which is the opera the operative article says the owner or custody in of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its rule or in the thing in this d case is the especially the us the thing in this case is the continuous process this is not the appellate st circuit opinion which talks about a fact pattern very similar to our fact matter the watts court saw a continuous process and that continuous process advance of trial now in light of ethel's arguments for the liability of settled party owns illinois i'll just leave that for mr mr b and would have to address it at the risk of stating the obvious th care custody and control was not disputed and dr gaddy is trial which further distances this case from the cases on which mr b and b do and his briefing rely on to argue that strict liability doesn't apply also just struck me if strict liability only applied to land then why is mr b m a new site in cases that referenced slip and fall on a nail left at a construction site and mail isn't the land the working for years on was slipping through responder's because of me as a ileo it was an accomplished man it was a doctor of chemistry he invented his own technology it patented it and he wished he wanted to convert waste into cheap and seventy three dr gaddy was depressed incontinent humiliated lethargic dramatically slowed left with insufferable sores in his mouth he had stage four he stop speaking fluid from his mouth drain into his lungs choking him to death i hope none of us know the torment of such an end not in any age would a difficult job to value that that pain suffering mental anguish loss of enjoyment of life those are all discrete categories of damages that the jury assigned to this case and so this court has said quote the determination of the extent of damages fact and in this area the appellate court should step lightly or not at all and re air crash this court uses the maximum recovery rule to the term and whether an award d is excessive and so to judge fal but only to an extent the maximum recovery rule calls d for the application of a multiplier for jury awards that's one hundred dollars that means one hundred and fifty percent of past similar awards the award is not reduced i'm relying on more versus angela three hundred and fifty three federal rd three hundred and seventy six so for jury awards this court has applied a multiplier fifty percent judge fallon found the case of white versus d energy factually similar multiplier finally owens illinois and i'll wrap this up as quickly as i can the question is can a reasonable juror reach an owens illinois liability finding on the trial record no doctor rock didn't think so and i'll tell you mr mr b n p who said that every expert agreed in the case against international paper well that's factually inaccurate dr rock didn't think so record at eighty nine to a colon seventeen through twenty one that's how the jury got to their liability finally against owens illinois that is ethel's trial attorney in closing saying something he thought and rightly so a reasonable juror d needed to hear before she could find no one's illinois liability and in opposition to this appeal ethel gave the court even more information about owens corning that isn't in the trial record trial was the time to introduce that information and it all all of it all the information belies ethel's opposition to the appeal if this court denies the appeal proof of liability relaxes and the th circuit it's reasonable without two links in the evidence chain we don't know owens corning did not manufacture kalo not proven owens corning supplied owens illinois kalo not proven and so i will end where i