if you asked me what caused my fall i would tell you it's a combination of both things a problem in the eye and a defect in the skit that was not a conclusion about legal causation and it was not  correct ok if it was a general verdict and how do we know that the jury which way the jury went as to the to the to the shoes are to the problem in the eyes  was require you to pollute prove both theories can recover but you're right that you could have very covered on either one how do we know which theory of the jury would have granted for your recovery all the tours that show that the jury made by making a decision on something although i see soon all the time the general verdicts are correct them if you can point to something that shows that it was incorrect here i think the burden is evaporate just make sure i've got this straight if we conclude that in fact there was sufficient evidence of notice with respect the couch yes that's correct then the general verdict problem goes away exactly got it at the time of the summary judgment hearing which as the district court's order reflects an observer based on the law of the circle the denial of summary judgment does not preclude a directed verdict the rules contemplate that able to testify that it was one or the other and nobody did testify that it was one or the other it was come a combination prior to here the jury was instructed that mr le bron contends that royal caribbean was negligent by providing them with skates with broken legs and by failing to maintain the ice skating rink in a reasonably safe condition that the ice arena had gal just on the ice and was dirty then the alternative pleadings every day i mean there just doesn't seem to be anything unusual about that and the jury heard argument on on this alternative theories of liability and it was either one or the other well that's that's what he testified caused a skull but then we go to the biomedical expert whose testimony they keep quoting but it's not correct then this particular type of structure would be prevented but without the fall she couldn't tell what the cause of the fall and she couldn't say he wouldn't have been injured that's where she makes a distinction between the  have never i don't i don't have any authority on my propositions but the judge actually asked them what their theory of the case was because they kept shifting at trial to go different theories you said a summary judgment fourteen of the sixteen got nuked that leads to that and i have i agree with you except that they were asked about what their theory of the case was and they said it was the combination and that was the combination was how this case was tried and the dangerous and the fact that it was both both injured both events happening together with the theory on which the case was tried in which the jury was instructed my ask you this this is judge newsome because i mean that there's a whole other thing going on in this case that we ought to talk about which is that none of this matters none of this combination theory stuff matters if there was in fact suspicion evidence of notice of the go if you put together quality as testimony which is pretty clear plus the on certainty about whether the ice was appropriately maintained or swept before le bron skated plus the testimony that your maintenance people were near the the ice at the time that seems like plenty of evidence may well here's the problem number one was prohibited actually from testifying on that subject and so her she was listed as a damage witness only so when she testified the judge allowed that to come in but all she said it  jury heard the evidence number one but number two with regard to the name the negligent maintenance with their expert actually testified to once again it was their period of inspection the tape that they were given provided time one hour before and one hour after the accident but the inspection occurred at five  and fifteen there was an inspection at six o'clock so when they say they didn't see it one hour before the one hour before mr le bron's out was six hundred and fifteen that's what they were talking about evidence of notice with regard to the gallery and the evidence that was presented with regard to the gouges is more i can and terms of the inspection or the failure to inspect all that their experts said was that we had a duty to inspect prior to the public to skate and there was no question that we did that the other procedural issue i want to duraid and that goes to judge fal question with regard to what is the remedy in this case they didn't lose for a new trial all this evidence all the discussion of the verdict form general verdict form versus special verdict form there's two separate conditions they had the duty to object the judge brought it to their attention they didn't object to it they wanted to general verdict form so there is no way to determine what the jury decided but they didn't  reinstatement of the jury verdict so procedurally there is a problem with the case and the problem with the issue of notice on ice is that it's constantly changing and that's why just looking at the doesn't for an inspection we met the standard of care by inspecting within the two and a half hours the question is the ice and whether it's dirty or not doesn't answer the question of how testimony about that so that's the problem with that analysis with the gals there nobody saw it and it was brought nobody's attention and that's why as the trial judge concluded dynamic the person who skated immediately before mr le bron could have caused the gal in the that's why we didn't have notice of the opportunity to check with with all of that stated the case was tried and the jury was instructed on the combination of the dangerousness could not there was no notice on the condition of the ice and with mclachlan in terms of inspection and what he said was that we should inspect prior to the public being put on the ice for the public skating session the public expired and for the reasons stated i would ask the court to affirm thank you thank you higher mountain to climb in order to increase their burden clearly true they were maintaining that this was one or the other and possibly both now we heard the quality it was prohibited