of his core employees who have been transported by outside contractor to transport them to a location where they're going to pick up the three union pacific occurs she testified in this case that although she doesn't remember a lot of the details of what transpired after she left her intestine was to fifty five she's going in the direction of where th single lane so she actually has to move over behind our back and this bank can testify she wasn't sure whether it was the alcohol or if she she passed out which she has no deal there is no up whatsoever in any of those reports the police officer or any investigation from police officer that suggested that be investigated please stop excuse me that th matter of fact he says are over and over again say it's not even really that it's the finest obligation it's their burden of proof and th it seems like now you've been arguing from the standpoint of the jury instruction and rightfully so but this it would seem like and remember there were two motions and women who fell but the point right there were they could not even put forth evidence of sort of proximate cause that is what they are just reject right but but the appellate court has indicated in this case that they have already in a similar vein you know it's one thing to say that the railroad is responsible even if it's partially at fault for the accident yes and i think i mean mr jones would agree with that but isn't it quite another thing to say that even if there is the slightest evidence from which the jury could infer negligence on the part of the railroad that the jury has to be precluded from even hearing evidence that another party was so responsible yeah exactly right you can't but him well repeat again i said that it it's one thing to say that the railroad is responsible if it's partially a fault correct right it's another thing to say as i believe the appellate court did here that even if there is the slightest evidence from wh the jury could infer negligence on the part of the railroad that the jury has to be precluded from even hearing the evidence that in other party was solely responsible i think there are two different things yeah i hear hear you guys that's  that the river relies upon go strictly to the first one if you look at the in this case the supreme court cases they relied upon in this prodigy that was not a case of anything other than the fact that the supreme the court said no there was evidence that they feel to produce a suspicion i said that it was evidence that revealed bias a place of work went up and heal in the court looked at and said nope that's not enough evidence and then when i went to the supreme court it's their fault we're not at fault now you're putting in it there's a completely different driver between saying lack of evidence you didn't make your case and yes there's some evidence but we disregard it as we're going to entitle to look at whether a third party is at all and there's a huge difference when you try a case where you sit there and simply say you don't produce enough evidence versus it's these guys over here that did it forget  lives and that's what those jury instructions in this case did you i really gave them the opportunity to sit there and point the finger to which they're not entitled to do well here the real world was found not to be negligent period and and that is why we're going to go ahead and intervene at subsequent act proximate act whatever you want to call it and now we're going to say that that parties at fault the finding of the sole cause does not say when you allow them to point the finger trial when you give an instruction that says if you believe that one party isn't all that is not the same i'm sorry your honor is simply saying that the jury that the jury found the river not a fault what they did was they found the other party  the public policy here where a drunk driver is involved in a case strikes a car and why should not there be some reviewing of wrote i was too i was just going to say i mean rooster jones is is going to get up here and talk about why i don't why your evidence is no evidence at all and that the the fault on the fault lies with the drunk driver intoxicated dr burke rather and certainly right now we were not what we're listening to right now and listening to both sides of the story  and it really is perplexing to me that the jury with the fact finders should be able to hear a direct cross examination and limits sir whether they agree with your position that there was some negligence on the part  of the professional driver in this case the railroad through or so really because of the accident was based on what happened with the drunk driver and i just i just don't see anything in the law a case that the fact finder should be able to make that determination if you read the l a and you read every supreme court case including in the court is said was under seal of the so line of inquiry is whether or not there was a fault so you don't get to get to consider whether or not a third party has all the surest back legal term do not get to go ahead and get jury instruction that he cannot put on any evidence that the sort of proximate cause of this accident was intoxicated driver i did you did and that goes further because in context speaking of context you  the third party it is not entitle to introduce evidence and as of a third parties that listens and it is not and at that point that's before the trial that's before anything's been presented to the jury judge we have evidence that the railroad is going to do the employee switch philo away from those every supreme court he says it this were found by i'm sorry but the supreme court says you have but going back to the most i don't want to belabor this but going back to the motion in limine name if we go back to the m him to me is the telltale sign of what your position is one about in the case where the driver did this which wants what if the facts of this case work that the the professional driver for the real world was going straight down the street going the what the evidence is no evidence at all until there's a fact find the reviewing the evidence is just what you say new evidence is and based on they had you're asking the trial judge in the public court seems to have agreed that the baby should not be able to prove in evidence  you know i appreciate your passion i would totally agree with mr bob that based upon the law we cannot ask the jury to abortion fall what we did is we were to banding their allegation congress created this law and there's pros and cons for the point and then i feel a case number one for first of all he does unlike cop he has to prove negligence and he has to prove the causation of his injuries decided this case and rejected their claim it's i'm contradicted in every case they cite and it's from the u s supreme court on down it's in the law that