law was true the st one foreseeability i can't think of a situation if i had to think of a situation how did this occur i've never heard something like this happen before i don't think brief and the evidence doesn't answer two questions the st question i said is who did this you know who makes no sense it's not something  things i was in belgium with other people said but he did say he used the word mess with the toilet paper but mess with the toilet paper there's a big scratch to it mess with oil vapor and balancing on top of a door because of the on the head and that's a guess have of what happened is right in the but the point is can show foreseeability by showing prior incidents there were none where they did show you know similar incidents there were none you know it's not like such a way so it doesn't fall off and they have a door almost completely close and all this is in the record i'm just saying that is a unique situation you know it's it it's a kid to the rd party criminal act kids where you have to have you know somebody does something intentional you know maybe not the heart of it these are the pranks somebody and then we have to have some sort of knowledge because it happens a lot in the neighborhood or that happens a lot at truck stops or convenience stores really where and that's what we don't have that this is a construct of those cases at that time component this material you cannot get around there are there are some very clever opinions out there where people is that ok now based on these facts we can show that it was there or at least this amount of time there was a recent case the higher case came up in june where they had a man sitting in a bar everybody was getting it up all the horror of the world meds and even though you couldn't say and i think what's important for you to know here st and foremost is the remedy that the defense is asking for their entire it's their their motion for a directed verdict should have been granted their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted and i know you're all aware of that standard i've noted in my brief as well but i think it's important in this particular case to know that and what the courts have said with regard to that standard is that the court has no right to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if there is any evidence demonstrating substantial factual dispute or where assessment of credibility of witnesses or determination regarding conflicting evidence is decisive to the outcome and judge cooper was absolutely right to  there is plenty of evidence to support what the jury decided in this case and that's what i'd like to talk about so with regard to what evidence is there where he foreseeability great point your honor and that's actually one of the st things i want to talk to you about so i'm just a champ and you raise some points about mr sails testimony the janitor and i'd like to read for you what his testimony was because i think this goes exactly to be kept in one of three places the generators the janitors card the dispenser right and everything is going the way it should go the general public shouldn't have access to the toilet paper rolls is that correct that's not so very much that's not true man because people take the toilet know they take it out ok so only if somebody intentionally moved it would be in the hands of the general public it's a comment back to the people well truck drivers and this and that the dispensers are you know i guess it don't hold the paper don't come out as fast as they want and they just turn a little handle and take it out and just leave it there ok all right so you've seen this did you say in your eleven years one hundred and eleven thousand two hundred and eleven and a half eleven and a half years of pilot you've said that the public at times will mess with the toilet paper yes and you're aware that well he would pick the toilet paper up and get it back in the dispenser yeah you put it in one of those three places where it should be correct correct and as a pilot employee that's where you would put the toilet paper that's right so we have an employee who's testified that he is aware that patrons regularly mess with one of the paper and put it places where it shouldn't be they open up the dispensers they take it out so this is something that is absolutely foreseeable for defendant in th of stealing essentially a roll call paper that was not located in the women's bathroom because all of them will fall in place in the putting it from another location and place it in the wom under their control they are supposed to maintain control of this toilet paper and frankly that is what they did not do and that's why we alleged race that's the count at the time of trial and that jury instruction was given to the jury is that this is something that they are supposed to maintain control of it should be in one of three places and it was allowed to get out of their control and they did not take the steps to ensure that the toilet paper which was there in their responsibility to maintain control stayed within their is aware that there are hazardous conditions that can occur in the bathroom and that's why those policies are so horton and the employees are to inspect that restroom every hour and it's everybody's job and they can't point to a single person who was in that restroom in five hours before my client got injured so that's what they failed to do they failed to make sure that this was in a reasonably safe condition for my client and other patrons and the defense is  particularly helpful in persuasive in this case is and supports the jury's verdict and that instruction says that we can attempt to prove either of two ways that pilot travel center was negligent she recruited what kind of travel centers actually did or did not do on the other hand she may attempt to food prove the following proposition that the injury was received from an industrial sized thrilled with a paper which was under the defendant's management rd that in the normal course of events the injury would not have occurred if the defendant would all of this evidence and this is this is definitely a case where it should have been given to the jury because there there is conflicting evidence we don't know who put this roll of toilet paper there but what we do know is that if they would have done what they were supposed to do can't control their toilet paper inspected their bathrooms in a timely manner according to their policy my client's injuries would not have occurred we're going to win the case what would be heard in the event had to inspected  restroom you know pretty close in times when my client's ex and i would have occurred i would not brought this case i would not have absolutely and i think that's a distinction between some of the cases that they've cited including that hayes case that they talked about the problem here is that this is what the jury did done they just cannot show that they did what they were supposed to do in maintaining the restrooms and making sure that they can't control that toilet paper like they were supposed to so no i would not drop that case absolutely aware that truck drivers not only removed the toilet paper when they were inconvenienced such as when he didn't come out fast enough but they also stole it out of mt it's still there maybe i mean i don't know but he also says that they tore it up when they about unsafe conditions with accident that occurred here is not something that would normally be considered unsafe use of toilet paper if there is such a but my understanding i think we need to keep track of what the dangerous condition here is it's not the world oil it's the wall paper balances off of the door before somebody can enter a bathroom stall the combination of landowner trips and falls slips and falls those are things that we should be paying attention to every single day objects falling from the sky or off the tops of doors where they're not supposed to be is not something and we just don't happen there is nothing in the record to suggest when this plane took place and if we knew that then we could assign blame if we do get it we could assign blame this but there's no evidence that  it in fact in the brig the evidence is that we didn't do it that somebody did this a baby out of spite maybe out of anger we don't know why he did it we don't know who did it we don't know when they did it and because of that we're asking that this