that caused her seat in the defense again of honeywell was they agreed with that exposure and that that was a positive exposure but that that was the result of independent conduct and the court facts and circumstances relied upon are asked consistent with innocence as with guilt it is the duty of the court to find that the conspiracy has not been proved the purpose in providing this evidence this is circumstantial evidence that other companies are not selected by client the plaintiffs to be in this alleged conspiracy had information and they likewise failed to warn and it wasn't just one or two companies outside the conspiracy that failed to  according to plaintiff's own expert dr castleman it was every company in the industry it was the government the federal government the state government the local government they had information and working to play this expert and nobody this evidence was offered to provide the jury with the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct especially what happened in this case with the exclusion of this evidence is that a false world was created so far as the jury was unique to them it was universal it was state of the art it was the industry norm it was the way everybody did it at the time under no link moving to nolan words in that case focused on the purpose misstates the purpose for which this happens was offered by honeywell as i just explained to the court and nolan at two thirty three il second for thirty seven stated that although the circuit court allowed plaintiffs to introduce circumstantial to prove their case but you excluded tonight defendants the opportunity to present circumstantial evidence to reply that position this is not a case where the evidence was offered to shift the burden and under clerk that evidence needs to be allowed to consider it the other issue that is snoo to this case as opposed to the homes argument that justice turner mentioned from last month is that this case does involve punitive damages in this case and the error in excluding this other company parallel conduct evidence is exacerbated in this case because of the akin to a criminal conduct there is nothing on this record that honeywell or the predecessor of money and x had any intent to harm the intent and so ledge by the plaintiff is the intent to enter into the conspiracy to fail to warn to with intent to continue to be able to sell a product there's just something simply nothing in this record that would support a finding that the tent was to harm him again that's all the more relevant when you indicates that those horny answers can be made by an officer partner or agent if this court held in white carlock supreme court is careful in their wording they select their words carefully and precisely the difference in the wording between i would say before obviously before fifty three and because in reason for that is the defendants in this case say it's their position on a house of exposure case that you have to see the particular harm as to the particular class  study report back to man bill or his order to return it by his boss in an exhibit its exhibit three sixty b its hands memorandum from november forty eight where he says it looks to him like the only concern is really cautions from a legal point of view abroad and the defense expert in this case dr dyson says that he thinks hamill is referring to the t v to ninety reports of cancer the are already in the literature about forty eight which is why hammond a doctor when that concerned that report talked about said that was a low dose exposure nobody knew about low doses could be harmful place exhibit four hundred eighty is the outline to the companies from the researcher gardeners or in that there were twenty four nine hundred forty three he has an outline of what he's going to publish  this case i think is a little different than simpkins or for that matter the nelson case which was discussed a month ago still this case is not a premises liability case and in fact it's more than even an employer and i would suggest and that's a choice nobody has ever said you have to have a special relationship when you supply product in the stream powers issues is a foreseeable that members of the public whoever those members are that something have some association product or some in these things to the spouses or the children of workers it's not an expansion it's a restriction that the defendants are trying to argue because these cases are not new they've always occur this court consider van winkle back in ninety seven  part of the group that employed syria next to the last sentence there's no evidence well there's no they did not sign the agreement so the answer is no there was a meeting there's exhibits about that there was a meeting all the man go corporate innocent acts a vixen struction fourteen was given without objection which is similar to one that was given by the defense and then we go which says there's no such thing as accidentally burtons for suspicion conspiracy so yours who got hurt and in terms of whether there was evidence that's part of the ice as you consider how reprehensible this conduct the frequency of the misconduct with those attempts to conceal the enormity of the wrongs all that goes to it we never general motors and yes they did monsanto yes they did many if not all of the companies he said we've covered various types of companies and many of them and certain individual companies and they knew the problem each of these other companies many companies would probably consider probably the sport sort of peels one of the defenses from from some of the companies that didn't toas the industry leaders don't tell them it's sprin defenses nobody told us we would have employed insulators so would have required number one many trials and number two we never suggested that they should be liable solely because of their agreed that's in place instruction sixteen principles conspiracy so we had to show more and that's why the truck were allowed our order let me know as far as the government's not telling i still don't understand how you can be a  to these companies of showing that they have a mutual understanding that the federal government didn't get around the passing ocean to the seventies and therefore lack the power make companies tell before that the companies that into what they did  telling people who worked well i say probably shame on the government but that doesn't prove whether there was or wasn't conspiracy among these eight years so i think i've covered the items which have been addressed the support for if this was something that had been brought on the work place his desk in the house so it could cause someone to get cancer answer yes so you can't expect away from cancer that there was as bestow sister cancer and therefore we should have known it was getting to the