summary judgment as to the defenses of the outlook how basically judge thomas said i don't see any way that rolls royce is the manufacture of the engine could ever be responsible for the failure of the floats in the  inversion of the helicopter once the helicopter was safely on the water we believe you're one of the one that was clearly a fact question for the jury to determine which is intervening cause is it intervening cause is it superseding intervening cause  part by rolls royce to create a job to be put as a spare parts into the engine and that spare part warranty said that there's a limitation of consequential damages so if the order it was the bearing is defective the go beyond that bearing to an argument that the engine of the helicopter contained a red hit with tori defect at the time of sale now you're no longer constrained by the limited warranty and it's limitations on consequential damages you now have just a plain  but what the what the judge did was take away from us the opportunity to present that evidence to the jury because the evidence would have showed it and again we have part of this is on the record as well that the vast majority of times look this is not the st time how long they'll keep the helicopter afloat a whether or not you get your be able to recover your public option they only certify them to stay keep the helicopter up or wait for a certain short period of time to allow people to get out and once that's it the f a a doesn't care what happens to those floats and whether or not you recover the helicopter and avocado makes no warranties in that regard and ph i will tell you that a very small percentage of the helicopters that land in the gulf of mexico after an engine failure were covered most of them turn over at some well that's that's the expert testimony even even ph as it will be expert admitted that the purpose the reason for the certification of the float is to keep it floating logan up that's the expert testimony that's in the record yes so that's not an issue in the case but no it's not an issue in the butt but i'm trying to say that's what we would have been arguing is look any time a helicopter goes into the water and lands on its floats the engine manufacturer after your many years rolls royce has been making engines for helicopters in the gulf of mexico for more than fifty years they are well aware that it is foreseeable that that helicopter will be lost once it's in the water floats are built in other words when you put a heloc up in the water it's essentially an unstable object and that the chances are it's going to be lost and so ready that's why we would have argued to the jury based upon that evidence expert as well as factual because the ph a lot of folks were there to give testimony of the glory of a lot of it was that once the helicopter in the water it's likely to turn over  lost and therefore if we had been able to show the jury that the engine manufacturer is the reason that the helicopter ended up in the water and this is ph eyes it will expert that would be saying that it really is royce th at is most horses already on notice that there is a likelihood in his foreseeable that the helicopter will turn over and therefore that's why we would order to the jury if we had been allowed to put on that evidence as to those rods that the rest of the trial has been arguing as to whether or not those floats were intended to keep the helicopter upright well whether that was not intended if so it and if there was a rivets or a defect but the argument that they were prevented from arguing to the jury that it that's what they are doing maybe but they did they didn't get to put any evidence to support that what the district court held was it was irrelevant why ruin to fail whether or not the floats had to read inventory defect that caused the helicopter overturned all that mattered all that was relevant was that the engine failed why it failed it was a strain is fact that the court said it was not admissible it didn't matter i will tell you that the court excluded that evidence under grounds of both for  question asked a jury but the fact of the matter is we put the cart part of the horse just a little bit if you look at the pleadings is solitary are the boring issue was not blood for that reason alone as this court has held regularly a court of district courts are only required to submit those material issues raised by the evidence in the pleadings the issue of whether a party is a solitary of the gore is aid in affirmative defense that must be what they did pleaded almost cite the court to their firm of defenses which are the forty seven dollars of the record if you look at the question did the comparative question they submitted it is to what extent did the fault of each of the following contribute to ph i's claim damages expressed your answer in terms of percentages from one to one hundred percent and the percentages cannot be in excess of one hundred percent of the rolls royces listed in the solitary i would word offense that both of them have to be simultaneously liable for one hundred percent of the we would also argue that a secondary reason why the court in the air and submitting their defense is the fact that these are solitary album horse under louisiana civil court article seven hundred and ninety four dollars to be a solitary on the door you have to be responsible for the for the did or did not do anything because the rights of the court found abigail was not responsible for the injuries they are only responsible for the rest of the flipside of that is rolls royce did or did not fail to do something that caused that if you remember and i think the only thing that goes back is whether or not wrote there was a the facts in the rolls royce engine that caused the loss of the entire helicopter ain't it these are yes then they get exactly what they're seeking which is fifty percent if you send it back i don't disagree that that's the that's the legal outcome of what happens again i think if you look at look at the pleadings i don't think it that during the pendency of the case in the trial court we were arguing still that comparative fault was operable in revenue recognition case as we said the supreme court will rule on that issue and therefore we were continuing to press that issue in  from what what that case is is that if you want to argue that you need to pleaded and you need to plead extinguished yet the court if you read the whole opinion rather than the one quote cited by p h o r the  court goes on to applaud solidary i would go for status to all of those without the word solidary on the book or ever being used in any of the defenses in that case other words they would do that by seven or eight or seven so that's that's our way that's that's and by the way let me point out please that the case they cite is under louisiana law which is a different pleading standard than the federal courts the federal courts of course have the notice leading in is that we should put on notice and we talk about all those grief were st of all if you look at the judge's ruling which is very interesting when we had the pretrial conference a judge you know for the st time hey look i'm thinking about not like you put on any evidence of the engine the reason you did but he said i will give you seven days to br