is what's in the deposition testimony it was it was no testimony that the seatbelts and driver side door was going to be repaired now that that is true rather that those were the allegations made when the complaint was originally filed in the discovery is it your contention that there was an undertaking as to the seat belts and the doors yes or at the time of this past at that time no there was none so therefore the semi judgement would be good as to those allegations would you rely on to first get us to that relationship between john lewis employee of s r f rocky and it corn and midway which did work on the car key here i would agree with that ok show me where there is testimony in this deposition at this plaintiff rely when he w were build a secret through their ongoing invoice he grabs right across the street for the slot well so there's some existing relationship there so there is some evidence that there is a relationship amongst all of these entities as to what was going on but the history  the tractor trailer are no longer available to be tested fact as the trial judge put it in his words are probably more simply than i do in my brief there's just about everything wrong with this case that could be wrong with a voluntary undertaking it's first of all there's no wonder tak they said the undertaking was for all the repair inspector trouble ok forgetting about the when counsel suggests that there is a relationship here do you have any reason to dispute that at least the facts show that mr lewis was getting daily assignments from she there's a dispute about that are but there's a dispute so grabbed him off the cliff and that's what caused this accident then this would be negligence or at least we know that he was for whatever reason he wasn't getting assignments from the company he worked for he was getting his delivery or drops of whatever he was what was all that about well there were there were basically three conversations that they're basing the duty on the first one was the conversation where we had the brake failure two days before the accident  a clearly that didn't create any kind of a duty the third conversation was the next day when he says that he talked to pat cortez on the phone and he testified and they couldn't find anything wrong with the brakes so now there's no work was done on the brakes because they couldn't find anything wrong with that that's his testimony and it's not just or nothing less that's right all right he's not saying pat said the failed to discover this problem and they tell papper tez there's nothing wrong with the brakes and then she told the plaintiff there's nothing wrong with the brokers then forget about the there's no bridge she's just relying on somebody else over so if you're really telling us  i just i just want to make sure that you know there's no you know ok misunderstanding there's no reliance there's no reasonable reliance because the plaintiff by his own testimony nor was for a fact that when he gets in the truck on the day of the accident the brakes are in exactly the same condition as they were two days before when he pushed the brake pedal of the for nothing happened he had to use the gears in the class the snow travelling didn't happen much later as he's driving the truck uniform that for several months he had periodic breaks sometimes the brakes work sometimes they get at ninety nine percent is not good enough for brakes like he also testified that he had to actually physically prop the truck to either it way or it or one of these places a corner and  with the brakes as far as he can see he's concerned because acorn put the brakes on the truck so in other words acorn saying it's all in your head buddy i don't even need to look at yes two days before they were two days before a killer equant told them today where there's nothing you know how can we give you relief when there's nothing in the record that shows that acorn did or did not do anything i think you can give us relief