million dollars in f e l a personal injury action triton circuit court count there are a number of issues i think all of them are kind of interrelated how we obviously think the result of this and i think the most important of which is the court's decision to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the defendant's affirmative defense of contributory negligence because that was a in cross examination testified in every conceivable manner that he complied with art in the rules seventy five point one in each other's particulars and that he and his niece and therefore his testimony say that the road maybe had its own practice and that's what the employee it did do and if he didn't do it then maybe he loses his job and so therefore instead of following seventy five one it was an eyewitness fact he was the only person who sought and he testified that he himself complied in all much real respects we said we believe the evidence will show that he did in fact about how you want to interpret it but it was into his chest and mud so he complied with all material respects with the safety rules there was no called the plaintiff's testimony into question which gives a basis for comparative negligence with that with that being an assumption of risk rather than contributor order no absolutely not or would have been that he didn't comply with the safety exactly the types of exactly the types of arguments that were previously rejected in those cases coming out of the fifth district that should have an assumption of the risk not that this is this is a failure to comply with a second as justice lewis i believe in the deception in the one in the l n number one the verdict of five hundred thousand dollars for the present cash value of future medical expenses first of all the two physicians who testified that  same and again to beat a dead horse they want to just pick pick snippets of what they want you to believe and run with that which i guess is what people who lose derivatives do but under the law is not permissible the defense made a point about mr burst testimony response to a question about what did the plaintiff do that was negligent they talked about bending the knees if you look at this testimony and pages seven hundred fifty nine and seven hundred sixty of the record of the trial transcript that that he was distinguishing talking about bending knees and a kind of swat and he also said to swat it was not something that could be done in this case because again if you swipe your now even with or underneath the top edge of the did and then leaned over to me by the biomechanics of leaning over the bin to get to the oil filters necessarily means you have to straightening so in context that's what he was saying there is no evidence and the bottom line here is everything that was supposedly done wrong if you look again if safety rule seventy five point one of the things it says and you look at earl which is the end wilson the supreme court case that the defense even saves contributory negligence is an act by the plaintiff that adds new dangers to the dangers if any that already exist in the test at hand nothing the plaintiff did add a new danger the dangers that were there were there because of the way the real world filters in across he did the test as even the defense says in opening and during trial and even though he did the job the way he was supposed to do it well if there's dangers in the way and what he did and he did what he was supposed to do the dangers are not stump and there was a role that said take precautions when you walk in so that you don't have a tripping hazard here we have a rule that wasn't violated by the plaintiff adding dangerous there's nothing he did that added to the dangers already present in wilson the rule was  enough or closely or in or maybe it could be said he didn't have a flashlight he should have done these other things to make sure that there were no tripping handles in our case first of all there was no violation of rule seventy five point one by the plaintiff himself the violations that planet already had researched the serious or and could very well need additional surgeries in the future how many and when and what the nature they would be was not something they could identify with but they were all out of anything even probably will need some sort of surgical intervention down the line we asked for three hundred thousand dollars it was within the jury's privative to say he's already had three surgeries his back is a mess he's going to need several more if he's already had three and the testimony of the plaintiff's doctors was nat speculative in that they said i have no idea what if anything he's in even if you read the trial francis the doctor priest who was sane is right now today i don't know if he does but i can save over time you will evidence from you for the plaintiff's experts or any medical experts that the defense wanted to retain which it chose not to do that these specific degenerative conditions that mr evans had were related to his injury that he suffered when existing structure should be given in every single picture because as our own experts admitted every doll has some sort of beginning of condition it's just the nature of being an adult but that's not enough the law said that not enough the defense did not mean any preexisting condition to this particular injury it can act if that instruction the defense also talks about evidence that the plaintiffs are doing this jeffery leving months without any prior injury first of all they do is say since you did the job for eleven months and was an injury we had no reason to think that there was a dangerous condition here however as we cited in their briefs the coleman case mother says that violation of a safety rule itself can show negligence because of a foreseeability of a risk of harm and as i've talked about in the briefs talk about hurdle rule seventy five point one has five particulars four of which the plaintiff and his experts testified could not possibly be met given the way this test w structured in this case given that given that and the railroads own the preamble to rule seventy five point one says violations of this rule can cause serious personal injury that is extensive substantial test of his condition daily pain one of the surgeries was a spinal fusion that in fact was that failed which was result which caused the need for a third surgery is there was evidence that he was unable to work again for the affected maybe not even the other work at all given his physical limitations all this was something the jury heard it took into consideration and again thought this man is relatively speaking a young age he's got at least half of his life to live yet if not more trying all these reasons that this distraught was was horribly wrong they chose it the strategy their strategy was the rules were followed accidents happen but don't look at us that strategy backfired any of these other cases are about other than well pretty bad you got two hundred grand so we think that's good enough here no way first was against the love i'm going to comparatives but if you want to compare what they're trying to ask you to compare there's no basis for any legitimate comparison because there  should be mandated for a new trial new trial or contributory negligence preexisting conditions by the way there's plenty of evidence of that came from their own medical doctors and the judge has done it that's right