court reversed that decision for three reasons first it was air strike the affidavit of experts him done second it was error state there were no facts for the jury to decide in this matter third it was fair motions pending on the day this case went for motion one was a motion strength the affidavit the second was the motion for summary judgment when we were there the first time the trial court without discussion to mediately said the motion to and stated that they were off inclusions and dismissed or stroke struck the entire affidavit it was error because the affidavit contains facts of which reasonable inferences could be drawn and opinions of the expert natural gas into that house would have been for there to be a regulator failure yes sir you did the work of a clearly close that he stated yesterday that there was and there could not have been that p ninety a gas analysis which showed there was a concentration of gas of ten percent in that house a natural gas concentration of ten percent which was there when this house exploded ye explodes from there's a five to fifteen percent mixture of any gas in the house and there is something that ignites it that was the first thing the second thing he relied upon was the gas meter reading where the six days prior to this explosion which showed thirty eight hundred cubic feet of gas that it blown into this house in the six days since the meter had been read that's more than the previous two months combined in terms of the gas forward of the house he also talked about you talk about the air exchange in this situation you know point three now what that means is gas as it comes into the house is exchanger there outside yes and air keep exchanging and get this much gas in their house  this level at the time of the splosion would require excess amount of gas being pumped into the house that's what's important those facts or stray reports the fact that there was ten percent gas buildup in this house  fact that thirty eight hundred cubic feet of gas flowed into this house in the six previous days the fact that the regulator itself was forty three years old at the time of this explosion and the magnitude of the explosion itself this event is in this case would have you believe that a natural gas buildup of anywhere in the house of five to fifteen percent would allow such an explosion to take place this house was completely putting that point out your honor because in this they try to argue the facts in their brief what they say is a gas concentration anywhere in the house of five to fifteen percent would have call could have caused an explosion it can cause an explosion but that's why the pictures were the writers drawn or to show this house was completely obliterated which coincides with their own employees gas analysis showing there was ten percent gas throughout the house which is why the entire house was obliterated in this explosion those things create questions of fact for the jury in this case they tried out of back away that gas analysis by saying it could have been anywhere in the house in that value of the house that clearly creates a question of fact s of that document he did qualify that document he did say could have been just the bedroom or just a bathroom he said in that in that i analysis that there was a ten percent concentration of gas in the entire value of the house that's credible and not surprisingly they're backing away from that now in their brief and in their argument they're saying it could have been anywhere all the same facts and come out with different opinions they have different opinions as to what happened their different opinions as to what you met their expert and their employee excuse me to run thieving prepared is all  no he did not your honor he did not go through every formula and you never find out why i'm troubled by that specially when you're trying to stand correctly there was a motion to strike there but he talked about your exchange rate he talked about the amount of gas that was in the house at the time of the slogan he talked about you not yet came through the meter and in our part of the people we talked about that there are certain it's capable of being amended to show these scientific principles and conservative enough medical calculations to do so here it was fairly close in time your honor to be here then we got the motion and we did the amended he took those those facts and obtained reasonable inferences from those facts he did not go through and specifically say this is before when you have to use to get to this to this particular amount he did not do there's a wall and took those conclusions there they're arguing their conclusions are right well what are the courts say about their efforts so nothing well if by striking as to if you look at that document it shows how that there were ten percent yes concentration in the house if you look at how much gas came through if you look at the magnitude of the explosion those are facts from which reasonable inferences can still be drawn kind of like in the search and seizure conflicts we would take with the trial court has found a new term and whether or not those findings are work legal conclusions and looking at the cases that been decided in this district in other  believe that that is not a conclusion but rather the proper inference is and the proper opinion by an expert witness at some point that's what we have to do we have to have experts that offer opinions and inferences based on those facts that are clearly delineate in that affidavit and in their affidavits so yeah i think that it's a fair standard to have it as a matter of was noble to look at it that way and in terms of the court saying that there were no facts in the record to support mr i think we've talked about them to a witness he's also an opinion ways he delivered over it to the company in the years before this accident he gave them a fire that's represented in our brief it said you should not use the paint or will thank you very much unless they're back showing that something red warning relied upon the warning i mean if there is a another wise legitimate claim that some entities some company giving with dangerous or dangerous substance gave an insufficient warning to consumers who were subsequently blown up and killed by that substance that the plaintiffs fail a few moments ago is problem is a differentiation between a strong over that's the problem with the pamphlet he doesn't say i don't think this pamphlet is sufficient as a professor someone from reading  whether the same shell factor occur in connection with the operation for a property of the customer the telly or any other person here we have the presence of natural gas here we have a fire an explosion with injury and that under the terms of the kara now i want to talk about the actual facts concerning the regulator failure to show that there wasn't a genuine issue of material fact the first fact there was no leakage or fire at the meter site or from the regulator vent mediately after the explosion was regularly they gone and they were actually rely on the i c c report well if you look at what the i c c report says curiously enough had appendix one eighty seven he says he was there when they took this meter off the house and this is what did you observe the flow of gas escaping from the open end of the pipe was barely audible indicating low pressure delivery you're talking about thirty yes that's what you put in your heart attack barely audible you have to have a basis to show that court doesn't work and here they asked to come tested and we said fine i'm test if you even though it was subjected to massive insult and he'd exposure from this explosion he said natural gas in the range of ten percent inside the house what range five percent fifteen percent i think i would say that would be in the temp cent range you jumps there could not have been ten percent concentration well  you said there's a ten percent concentration so right there is that david has a huge gap and the fact is his theory basically assumes that there was so much pressure coming out of this thing gas went through of the belly he doesn't say discussed with mr chancellor the question isn't the exact language necessarily of this of this warning or of the length of it is whether the warning is adequate and whether warnings adequate is a question for fact it's not just the exact wording of the language of the wording it's how the words the word is what it means to take to get that warning to the public and that is a question of fact to be addressed by the jury in this case where you heard the why they realize what's going on here and they're trying to back off of it and in fact in their brief he made the order to mr jim did gas could have built up for several days well that's addressed in mr dunn's affidavit as well that there's an a change it takes place so that amount of gas could not have built up over several days we're arguing facts and the fact that we're arguing with this document means and what that document means any inference to be drawn from that shows that summary judgment was not properly this was the most drastic means of any case that you could have this was a summary judgment granted they were defendants in this case on behalf of the three people who were killed and the one person who is burned and psychologically scarred