morning may please a court first i'd like to apologize for the confusion with the jurisdiction i it was my agreement with counsel for the catchers that they should have been included with the motion to dismiss i fail to ad what i greet but the agreement was that they were not going to file an appearance and they would be joined in on any motion to dismiss against me that was the agreement well  stood for the proposition that there is no social hose responsibility until the legislature acted i believe with the enactment of the drug and alcohol impaired minor responsibility act the legislature has indicated wants social whose responsibility as it pertains to two minors i believe the literal application of that act results in an absurdity and that the act is ambiguous because it results in was i believe in you have the power to disregard to modify or alter and supply language to reconcile the intent of the legislat person or the surviving spouse who is injured by an impaired person under the age of eighteen that that end to those people have or has a right of action in their own name against a person and then they go into a little lie and double what it doesn't say a person over the age of eighteen this statute itself doesn't say that the person who is responsible has to be eighteen when he delivers the alcohol to the minor it just says that he has to be eighteen when he's responsible i believe the saying the statute is i am because then ok so th action against a person who supplies alcohol and they are injured by the minor who is in tax equated but the minor who is intoxicated has a cause of action but only if it's supplied by a person over the because you get a cause of action where you have a person who is not eighteen then you have a cause of action where you have a person who has to be eighteen but it still doesn't say that he has to be eighteen when he supplies the alcohol to the minor so believe we do now and maybe i misread the case but in the case of an enraged chill are i believe the court said we may disregard modify or supply language to give effect to the legislative design and if the legislative design here is to protect minors from being supplied alcohol by other minors then you have the right to excise those of leavenwor you can decide if the result is a turd you can decide if it's ambiguous and then if so i believe the case law that i have read says that you do have the power to remedy a situation that was unintentional or as a result of bad writing i know you don't agree with the with the result of this tacky tory interpretation but tell me why you think it's absurd i think it's absurd where the statute over the legislature wanted to protect minors from being supplied alcohol when i read the legislative debate that was the intent or just talked about anybody who a person somebody people who supplied alcohol to a minor could be held civilly responsible that's what they wanted to create then this act comes out and all of a sudden it says in some places that the person supplying the alcohol has to be eighteen it doesn't say when he supplied the alcohol he had to be eighteen it says that he is responsible when he is over the age of eighteen so i think that that is ambiguous and i think that the result was do you think it was an oversight i mean you kind of hit it in your brief do you think it was unintentional that the legislature just were a little loose in their use of language and they didn't really mean just to limit it to this particular group did i'm not sure and this is where when i read the debate the debate was clear that they were not talking about segregating a whole segment of minors supplying alcohol to minors they were just talking about civil responsibility when somebody supplied alcohol to a minor and then when the enactment came down the eighteen years of age filtered into it i don't know if that was unintentional i don't know if somebody said well we can't have people under seventy or under eighteen being held responsible because we all know that minors don't have the capacity to be sued so we have to throw in eighteen but when you look at the intent of the legislature yes it was either was the intention of the plaintiff all along to created a new law right so you're saying that you don't want to create your life that's kind of the opposite of what you said let's go ok i understand and it is always been my knowledge that sense charles the courts regardless of what level would not create common law social host responsibility and kept asking the legislature that i do believe that once the legislature did it and say we won social host responsibility that yes the shackles so to speak the restraint that came from the supreme court saying that we're not going to have social those responsibility i argued was now off in that you could create common law social host responsibility to supplement the legislature that's what i argued in front of judge les but you're not i mean it was it was said that's not what you're doing it's saying secondly i remember but i really believe by focusing on the statute and the ambiguity of the statute i can achieve for miners and from my clients the same result without you having to go through the common law social host responsibility which is a hot button in today's society the issue i believe before you today and i don't mean to offend the doctrine or forfeiture because if i didn't argue this this is what i'm arguing that fifty eight slash one is ambiguous that you should modify alter supply language that would result in a cheating the intention of the legislature which would eighteen when he supplies the alcohol to the minor i don't think so interesting person at least eighteen years of age who will kill his eyes alcohol liquor early evil drugs to a person under eighteen years of age and again i read it probably more broadly than your honor that let's assume he supplied alcohol when he was seventeen and i bring the cause of action when he was eighteen this law would apply and i think it's more ambiguous when you go to five where it talks about in my reading two causes of action one for a person of the surviving spouse who was injured by a person under eighteen has a cause of action against any person regardless of age then there's another cause of action for a person under eighteen who is injured by the impairment that was caused by alcohol that was willfully supplied by a person over eighteen has a cause of action against any person i think that that's where the crux of my argument is that all right ok any other questions that i may attempt to answer thank you very much i'm not sure i'm not sure that i understand that argument very well i mean it is there it is in the trial court dismissed the claims against corey katz oh or she did not and and but the question is whether or not that can be waived you know there's no allegation of brief in the remarks i've made here in the alternative you know it's a court just deems that there is no jurisdiction this case goes back to judge larson shitters a thrill for you finding that we we come right back up this family and dispose of the case on its merits or the like the case for ninety days one hundred twenty days but it can be done h mr murphy argued today an issue that he's never argued before which was that the statute was ambiguous that's not in his briefs that issue that argument has been waived and i think it's  almost frivolous if you look at the face of the statute in any event in his in his opening brief the appellant says the the question the issue presented is whether or not the court should create a common plaintiff argued it tomo argued that the act was imperfect and notwithstanding the ads plain limitation the court should allow an exception to extend civil liability when a minor supplies alcohol to another minor now it's not clear from the article what standard of liability this court was being asked to judicially enact a negligence standard displayed in counts five and six which simply alleges that the defendants were negligent in that in that they quote supplied alcoholic beverages to a minor but earth is the appellant asking the court to write out the legislative age limitation and create a common law cause of action under the terms of the legislative s clear that the statutes language is plain and on and big was that the legislature made a conscious decision to create civil liability only for legal adults those eighteen and over who supplied alcohol or drugs to persons under age eighteen that decision may disappoint some individuals who think that the legislature should have created liability beyond age eighteen for those under age eighteen to or to any person who supplied alcohol but that was within the legislature legislatures province to decide this social policy issue they are the ones in the position to balance  the various policy considerations that the supreme court has repeatedly indicated effects civil liability in the social holds context the decision made by the red legislature was rational and it was manifested in plain language and as as justice these pointed out in the section b there's no ambiguity the act only imposes leadbelly were someone willfully supplies alcohol when that person is eighteen or older to a person under i do not i don't do not believe that the legislative history would support any argument that there was a mistake made in the language of the statute there have been various versions of the statute proposed in numerous legislative sessions and after the supreme court issued their opinion in the look case in the next legislative session this bill was proposed and passed i'm not aware of any anything in the record or in the legislative history which would support any notion that this was simply a scrivener's error by the legislature and frankly when you think about it why wouldn't it is completely rational for the legislature to make a decision to impose civil liability on those who the state recognizes to be legal adults age eighteen and not create civil liability for those  others may disagree with and some may think it should have been only on people who are twenty one and older that the law says should understand drinking at the party to buy a drink but they did they made the decision not to set the bar at twenty one but decided today team there is no basis wrong for this court to simply write that out of the legislature and the absurd the absurd principle doctrine has no application to the facts of this case i think we need to look no further than this court's own opinion  express versus the owner worker's compensation commission where this court stated i think an opinion offered by justice hoffman that we are not at liberty by force are subtle construction to alter the plain meaning i'm having trouble understanding your argument around why that is something that the legislature me not do is you if you  it is the legislature's prerogative trigger to draft a legislator but when the same act has contradictions in it i believe that's where it's ambiguous and i believe when i read five yes it is but i believe that the intent is to protect minors from being supplied alcohol illegally by people over eighty by anybody but doesn't make this sense this seems legislature couldn't send accountants a very smart man who reached couldn't he very easily have written and then if that's what they wanted to make it apply to every single person even six year old children and hadn't written that in if they want it and that's how to draw a line we are on one side of the line would be the eighteen year olds on one side of the line with the people who are not eighteen year old so what's wrong with it that's what i hear and eat you not you not getting that cylinder from me and need any to get my arms around your argument and i know you don't like the way the statute has unfolded because it certainly doesn't help your client but we don't like lots of things with this justice types pointed out we are cor limited jurisdiction so we can we may not like it either but you can't just change the legislative language because you don't like it i suppose where i'm having difficulty your honor is that the way i read this law some of the time it applies to a person regardless of age and some of the time it applies only if the person is over eighteen and that to me is what is absurd if a person or the surviving spouse gets injured by an impaired minor they have a cause of action against any person there's no way team in there so this is so the legislature is saying we want this civil responsibility if for this cause of action then they turn around and they create another cause of action that says if they happen the impaired alper minor himself gets injured he has a cause of action but only against a person positive action against minors and without common law cause of action miners who are harmed as a result of being provided by all have no self and those that you ideas you want to talk correct that and what i said today court that we are very attentive to that thank you this matter will be taken on the enticement thank you for a