evidence offered by plaintiff as an introduction further i have disseminated to the panel and to counsel some of the exhibits at trial that may make some of the comments somewhat  where we are with respect to the industrialized nation that we are in order to prevail in this case plaintiff with him wired to approve of the mississippi product liability act that the model sixteen thousand crane was defective or lack of an adequate warning that the failure to include dr same hoses morning it was it would utilize my point as rendering the model sixteen thousand and reasonably dangerous to the ordinary crane operator and that the lack of d provided with respect to the danger and that communicates the patient information on the dangers and safe use of the product taken into account the care to mystics and the ordinary knowledge common to inform their consumer much turns on on what has to be warned is it you can insist the briefing in your hear that the warning was adequate don't let this tip over he may be killed  and that's for sure that didn't happen but that the danger of a tip over was clearly warned i don't see case law sided by either side it really gets into the specific issue here which is how can you be killed or badly injured to what extent is that warning also necessary and it seems to me if it is necessary it's because it is providing sift sufficient information using the language of the statu e that would allow a recently prudent person to react to this danger starting to occur what would you say the best case is interesting mississippi product liability act long on how to measure the degree of detail and the degree and what actually is the focus of the record warning that i can give you cases that  say that you may be killed if you let this tip over and they're saying that's not enough we must be told how we would be seriously injured or killed in order that the operator or wherever it is getting a warning  warnings that it would be necessary to cover the war front but that is the only wanted issue in this case i'm not sure how far that action were judged but the actual evidence in this case all of the individuals that seen operators they all know do this these are the bees new people that we are required to warn in these reasonable people also say only several of them for posing your friends on the other side have in their brief that a fair number of people who  operating one for thirty five years didn't know that these conaway two would fall in that way is that at least evidence and the record mr williams had been operating for thirty five years and we he did not testify we do not know mr abbott was an operative a number of happened the factual evidence is by those on the scene that mr williams was spiting if you will detail and was still in the calle there is also the testimony of mr smith i mean look i mean your man said he w within the manual at least sixteen references to the different things that can cause a tip over and some of those images specifically the consequence of the dog or serious injury and death but there was as i understand there was not an instruction  out with respect to that particular warning is limited only to the operation and there was another gentleman who was in a building crushed by a boot that was injured so it doesn't apply to him at all and he admits all of the details that i've just talked about i didn't couldn't because people aren't going car tip over took about three minutes that is based upon is there some evidence that there is some evidence of that drama but the problem with it is how you define the tip of it's based upon using these that are there's a picture every thirty seconds and so there was a measurement made by point as expert on the razor who mr williams crane in the new suit that easy is moving because until the testimony is that when the word from the guy i'm watching that was put it down put it down which has to be when he observed him happening within three seconds the and i'm saying the fact to a testimony is that he's in the grain finding whatever is going on and that the man on the ground charge to supervise the lift is alerted to the  there is no evidence of that the everyone is three minute period we're talking about the three minute period the photos that i have that show the process there was a time lapse camera at the site and it took a picture every thirty this is going to be how this would have prevented the action and how where it would have been located and i understand there was no suggestion as to where it was located but if you are we says danger of crushing has error with the point of saying that there is no objection to the critical inquiry under the mississippi statute is that a definitive a manufacturer is required to warn of the danger that it knows about or should know about the sixteen thousand which mr williams operating at two hundred there were only two hundred you don't have to tell me how because when i have this would have prevented he  to come off the ground a little bit and then the operator takes takes measures to then save the brain to then either increase the booming or which would then add more capacity to the use of the low down degrees of the radius there are things that three minutes can an r c be posing cals was a somewhat different way to characterize it when you look at this it looks to me as if that warning is saying you have to be at a fairly extreme angle of the crane itself t and that's what is being warned of a no one estimate what the angle is and so at least for some part even if we are as i don't know if you had expert testimony that williams would have known for that whole three minutes that a tip was storing to occur that was just a jury question probably but it seems to me that when it looks to be a very severe angle is what this warning is showing and this warning was given to the jury as the alternative warning that should have been used by the manufacturer it was an alternative what it was evidence of what information should be conveyed by the crane company which needed these down weights do fall it's not a jury here we know what the argument is so it seems to me that  your client had a choice to make three during that whole period of time of and what this warning would have told him is something that needs to be a jew a mission so i was probably given to the jury and where they could resolve it in the way that they did but it at some point he would have to made a decision if he knew there was a dangerous thing in the cab just when to exercise his option to try to escape from it and opinion when there was it may not have been an option and more juries but it is sort of a tough factual case to make that that is certainly a banding the crane at three minute point would have been far too soon when there was no threat ye made threat but no real sense yet that was going to come this severe and by the time a decision may have been too late to this needs to be the proximate cause of his injury this failure to have this warning that judge jolly  not yet been braised but we're all looking at it so you have any reaction about did i was just description of the jury take care of all the options that are concerning the power yes your honor and here's why what made the same arguments a trial from the from the opening statement through its presentation in cross examination it's cross examination of witnesses through its closing argument this was the position that was argued by manik walk among others that the time issue th forces on the operator of the crane or mr williams other than when he which is what we're experiencing here in this courtroom today so this isn't a situation where say a car gets in a wreck at sixty miles an hour and rolls or spins in multiple nor could they envision that these counterweights could fall in the event that the current did it again understanding the cranes given operators do things to try to save the crane to save what they do this without the knowledge that these unsecured boeing counterweights can fall in when that is contrasted with what matawan knew which is what the statute requires to know when it knows or should have known about the danger which caused the defect and paul lewis testified that mr williams would not have been injured if the following  not in fact the correct impact of the pad that when you have the they have a duty to warn of what the ordinary user consumer doesn't know in the video after personnel testified on contradicted you have to show that there was a better warning that could have been given no your honor that would be an adequate warning case and what we have here is a no one case that's the case has been tried from the from the beginning you know but also it sees me what you're really addressing this is the same issue ahead with your friend on the other side and maybe not best friend but nonetheless friendly colleague on the other side and it is me as an interpretation of the product liability act it's a state law issue of how much of the ramifications how much of the detail almost secondary effects of the tip over must be the warning or does the statute just require are which is the  the mississippi supreme court of does the general warning of death think chewing on the very thing that happened to tip over or much you step that down and if so in what way to the specific variety of things that i don't know if you would agree with all of them but it doesn't me the records of course there are a lot of things that could be warned about in so far as the manner in which a death or serious injury could occur isn't this unsettled state law issue on on the detail require no warning no your honor and here's why your honor asked earlier about a case that we can that would give us direction on the i would point the court to the mississippi try to say it open court about should happen may have known about all ten of these new warnings need to be given on all of them nor is it sufficient on a mississippi statutory law to warn of the of the central problem pounds of force on the computer but oh but in actuality there's over two hundred eight thousand pounds of force being applied on the current you had answers to or from the briefing from do all the arguments by  from mr allen salter who was at the time of the deposition the thirty six representatives he was replaced a trial by mr van egan he testified and that's there was a there was an issue with supplementing the record in the deposition that anything is defined in the industry as a critical we have disposed to happen with point and the lip plan was deficient in a number of ways including very obviously it was to have been conducted in person instead they did it by radio with the two flaggers that are supposed to be watching the lines they didn't have radios that were functioning so the mid point everything from the get go was wrong and that's what cause the upset with respect to the jury's discretion to you question benefit though uncertain benefit to in more detail warning but that's not our issue or issue is what does mississippi with quar as for as the details of the warning or how would this should help the plaintiff in this case it may have h him to get out of the out of the cab killed him well and just maimed him for life but all that is is more or less for the jury once we resolve the legal question of how much detail must be a new warning proximate cause of the in result the intervention of this if you call it a morning the intervention of business plank or changes nothing in the sense that this trip over was happening capacity by mr smith you and he had the same the same frame so it is the misuse that is the proximate cause of this and no we're mean has been shown would have changed the tip struck with respect to the other one he talked about this little south and warnie with respect to attain the else the jury found not in play into space on that because in that particular morning situation dr saying goes didn't even come up with