andrew mcconaughey and his teacher high school coach have all the gym door five minutes and you were just right next to the gym doors so he just turned around and walked him know it all end of the fight it ended on its own two to seven minutes is too long for the teacher to be the teacher should be absent thirty seconds maybe a minute so that to the seven minutes and it seems later and we don't have their witness statements that what it the question if capital is telling the truth why didn't the collide in the gym hallway the jury had every right to a couple's credibility and to find the middle school students more credit credible and that the issue and that's why he was now won't turn to the map because there's a problem with the map and it's not a problem for oz th cited by the the trial court or the a police they say it and this is the only supreme court in two thousand for a teacher's presence may prevent unsafe activity on toward behavior for instance a teacher may intervene in a appendix the proper map is in the end but it was a large visual aid and it was demonstrative certainly when we brought it to the court room as a large poster board just simple trial practice but it was a map of the school where was nice doing during this post messages that ability it also goes to the his whereabouts in his supervision of his students the middle school students during the fight or the beating so nice the place is red dye in the attic hallway as close to the pool hall way as you would want to be in you would rather to be as a teacher closer not farther from your middle school student when he's getting  there in the cafeteria or up there in the corner he can sure also again put his dot in that same corner area between the cafeteria in a hallway now i don't know if we really know and i don't know that it matters not that is it within a measurable distance that you could say in feet or how far away no it's not that yet is supervision superstition is being within the reasonable to cindy where you can point he says in this would have caught the jury's you know because it certainly caught mine at one point he says i don't want to show you the whole thing because the area reasonable supervision was getting pretty big at that point so i it's important to our understanding of the case and it shows yet another way in which the jury was within its problems to judge the evidence and w argument regarding the matter really goes to an argument where she's trying to establish a heightened duty of care that's the best way to understanding it i don't believe that she is that it's being used to argue that there wanton conduct but i think that really under when you go underneath all of that argument but what it really is is that she's arguing that there is a heightened standard of care so what we need to do is step back and look at what  and and i think were some of the overlay or i don't know if it's the word should really be confusion but we're kind of gets confusing to me is when you talk about supervision the reply and i know this court is doing it in the review so i knew you were yourselves reading all of the training that you've read all the chain scripts and you know what all the evidence is so i don't want to go a tit for tat and say you know this was sa chicago board of education and new cases are typically allowed to be race reply brief that wasn't necessarily raising a new argument so i didn't file a motion to strike but if the court is going to consider it i would ask for an opportunity to claim this only first you have to analyze the supervision issue because you don't even get to the spoliation issue if there is no proof of the doing something else and doing paperwork there's no evidence whatsoever that the fact that the resource officer who's there is no requirement that there be a substitute called in that that would have made any difference  was you know his teacher his teacher was with his class yes his class was stretched out as they're going on flying but as we know from the case law the teacher doesn't have to keep a student with an eye inference from the grandmother they say he wasn't there rather he was all the evidence from the students was that he responded and so there again i don't think that actions the utter disregard conscious disregard every difference to t that you know that obviously a jury verdict is something that you do want to take seriously and is not something you take lightly but still the laws do protect the school so i mean i think that the case law says that you make that inference is in favor of plaintiff so i think that inference a replay i think the only inference from my understanding of the judge's decision would be the inference that he made that couple was there because plaint does point out from miss woods testimony that he had told her that he had just been away for a few minutes so we don't know what exactly happened there but what we do know what the evidence does show is that she responded so where ever she was of you're looking at the totality of the evidence and the circumstances and situation which is clear that there's no evidence that on the places complains that this was the fighting stewart case in that says there are factors deviation from standard operating procedures we went through at trial the handbooks of the middle school and high school both and  handbook and that's standard operating procedure so all of the surroundings of the local mountain spoliation go to the standard operating procedure the school was operating under in there was a deviation from that standard operating procedure  certain and that i think sure pat doesn't unjustifiably make the response time of course that's where the students have said that the response time there was no teacher present no teacher responded and it was three to four minutes six to seven minutes three to four minutes two to five minutes these are the students testify minutes in the