to over the head guy kept him on the road so we didn't need to watch where he was going and he watched the defendant slide ending how would that change what happened the fact that he either was or was not watching that be more than fifty percent of the cause of this crash there that there was only one cause and that is the defendant lost control of his truck he slid across in the wrong way incorrectly and as opposed to the cases which we cited his only excuse was well i was going to change you know was when i went into a couple of hours earlier but that isn't to test for not being negligent but the question why why did these things happen well maybe it was when the defendant said i didn't know the neighbor sue me in trying to take money from my family suggesting somehow that if there was a judgment against him his parents would have paid what we know isn't true maybe it was a personality thing maybe problem with any of that there was not any evidence to support it well as i recall the chiropractor who was probably the best witness for your plan testified that all of the objective finding regard to the medical bills for example isn't controversial so is the standard are we going to change a standard the jury is entitled to ignore all of you know is it one thing simply say we're not going to believe any witnesses we're going to do what  evidence to the contrary you're actually right the jury had a right to accept the question if and they simply ignore everything that witnesses say when i was on the guy committee there was after the black ice case there was a lot of discussion  without regard yeah but that's that's exactly what happened here and there can't be a clear case of defendant being negligent and the plate of exercising all of the theory and anything t circumstance free to reject that crackers testimony or whoever the medical care provider is where that is the focus of the dispute even if it's even if there isn't a defense expert but you know these cases that i'm talking about and oftentimes there is a defense for addict and it's because of bad issue i guess you get down to this  famous i actually believe the best appropriate this is not a case where there really isn't any question about the facts everybody agreed that the facts are what they are and that is that the defendant crossed the line he offered no explanation isn't a black ice case we didn't know it was there or it surprised you he on the way down he was going down the hill by his own testimony he said he came around the curve i hit the gas when i hit the gas i lost control my car damages and where is here the a new trial necessarily indicate a finding of probability it's a matter of law the defendant we don't need to litigate that but it i think we're moving over oh i'm not sure because heller about this film that the jury did find that your client was negligent and that he caused the accident what evidence is there in the record on which the jury operate reject the medical problems with counsel argument is that the verdict isn't based on any it is based on an argument but not supported by there is absolutely no evidence that pending it anything other than lose control of the vehicle and he crossed the center line statutory violations sufficient to support a criminal invasion in fact he pled guilty to the criminal take it and a trial and said well i want to get my license back i have taken before and i  requires you to keep your current law requires that you review speak even if you're already below the speed limit based on whether a new jury was told that they were told this gentleman place you'll be to criminal culpability as a result of th there can't be any question but that the defendant was negligent in this case as we define necklace and there is no evidence the there was no way so the real question before the court is are we going to turn very flues and ignore the evidence and let them do whatever they want to and we have heard that is unreasonable and based and supported only the only way you can reach