will we won't see the second name yet you help us when we need to pronounce it but all the attorneys i mean i don't know if there's going to be more than one on each side if if there is anyone who gives planning on doing today please first step up and identify yourself for the record all right so that your position it is trying to do that with a negligence action you wouldn't get where you want to be if you had said ok we're his one we will accept responsibility that's not the same as what you do these decisions you know our the let's say negative interest meant to fall because the defendant has actually lock i disagree ok israel says seizing lawyer can be held to a higher standard that an employer could be found guilty of for libel rather  case would go to the jury right if you didn't accept if you didn't accept fred's liability for negligence the jury would hear everything they would hear his you know whether he was not exercise right here then there would be this whole thing on damages do you think then that say what the question was and then you know you didn't argue actually how this particular question related in any way to the resulting decision about you know if we could parse each question in that way i about the cross appeal do you want to address that now they are dealing b j n o p q do you address that now or wait that i think we probably should the other issue you want to get to right now i think we should he case where the court didn't use that term but will say it was not an independent preservation but it was in the context of the duty so the question in that particular case as an example is that so first of all this concept both acknowledging response that's occurred here for refer iran is not something that exists in the war the defense had invented this concept nor should exist in the law because the whole purpose of punitive damages again after a six zero point one motion has been granted is for the purpose of punishment and deterrent it has an important place in society and so so in this case would you agree that if they truly are if they had truly accepted liability for the will one day or two of their employees that the jury should have that been allowed to hear with an utter disregard they're not going to do that so i don't think they ever agreed to accept what it's done in the other cases under a nate this is theory i think if you're going to get compensatory damages wrote that one element has been identified by the defense as being outside the flexible range of reasonable such that the due deference afforded to the jury should be  theory that we can't be sure whether or not that didn't impact the decision making process and therefore there should be a retrial the cases cited to support that conclusion can be company that has shown a conscious disregard and utter indifference to safety going back for years this is a company building two thousand for the set up with an osha violation having to do with the exact same problem that happened here of the defendant's misconduct the and including the entirety of the german verdict what happened here or should there be a different rule though in a case like this where there's a negligence perspective and we have willful and wanton action and i shouldn't compass every allegation that was initially made so as to be able to move on to this well from want or should it be as you suggest that once it's dismissed everything is fine and we i think we would have been seeing these these kinds of claims over and over and over again why do you choose to place went to the jury negligence and misconduct both against the employer that is factually very different than what happened here having three i think he is argument was that the thread was never trained as you eat it is fine and that there was no there wasn't someone actually spotting for him when he