animation simulation why what happened during you know the events that led us here today and the reason i say that is because i think that it will give the court a good overview of just how quickly and almost contemporaneously all of this happened everything that we're going to talk about today how quickly all this happened i think sometimes reading on paper can maybe arguably give the wrong impression based at least on that on that video and i think the video shows just stated an unforeseeable intervening cause which is independent of the defendant's negligence or criminal act can sever my bill so i think in terms of the question it is of first what was it it was it and that goes to the independent it goes to i mean i think these are all kind of kind of together there and this is kind of what i wanted to do kind of what i wanted to get at i think that there's a distinction to be made between car accidents which are generally foreseeable and what happened here in this intervening cause which is not to force i don't think driving on coming traffic but in trying from a police car is it's foreseeable i want to address al hall i think is a more prudent to pull out of the shoulder of the road and to stay in the roadway i think it's hard to say no to that but on the other hand i that's i don't think she was required to pull off on the shoulder pursuant to the failure to on the other cars pull over and that's something the shown on the video the other cop cars all over my argument is that it's again almost contemporaneous so this is not a situation where we see it the other course over the  oh leftfield when they made that decision could any reasonable person have made it come up with losing the jury based on the way the jury was instructed i would say ok so you've given up on your first argument switching instruction or not i mean frankly i think the two arguments go together because i think that the first argument as because a couple of things here i'm not i'm not conceding that he needed to pull off off the road but even if instructed issue so i don't i mean i don't see the two i see them i guess being more closely closely related if the jury didn't believe that he needed to pull off and they would have certainly said that i think they would said no no liability at all but they couldn't answer the question that we think he needed to pull off but we have a superseding cause here and they saw that instructive that is going to sever the liability regarding this statute well there's actually another point for touch on that there's another point to make here and this is a crucial piece of evidence i think in this case had you been pulled off the road there still would have been an impact there still would have been a collision that's the stays up that's not the defense the i don't know how much weight you can give it when basically it's the accident reconstruction expert that says well maybe the accident would not offend or not fail but i think the important thing is here that the that the collision was going to occur no matter what was moving at i think it was seventy three miles an hour point of impact point and stuff and again it was also his that there was only one point two three seconds from the time you have between taylor and the time that the officer and the defendant collide so again we're looking at something that just was soon boom boom just right like that now i think that if the state's theory of the case were that he then again i don't think the section supports that supports that theory of the case  one way or course of address this is by causing condition and in civil cases and i think justice cooke this goes a little bit but what you were saying about superseding perhaps  negligence i think can be does make cases say negligence can be a condition but it doesn't it's not necessarily a cause and i don't know that's the perfect example for what happened here but i think the prefer illegally parked which and there was no dispute that it was legally parked so there was like there was negligence and but the supreme court held that it was not cause attention passed in front of the truck and was struck by lightning car and what the supreme court held was that it wasn't that the tanker truck being illegally parked was not a cause of the harm but it was a condition and i think that that's kind of what we have that's kind of what we have of them was as follows price and causes defined as that cause which produces an injury through natural continuous sequence of events and broken by any effective interview i have a couple other examples but i use that one because that was from an appellate court case plain or right correct two weeks ago the third district people versus english had a case in which they were is an issue should it be in your initial brief i actually i would say no and the reason i say that is because there's a supreme court case and i don't have the name off the top of my head on that i'll be happy to supplement it after after argument and as far events therefore it's approximate cause and there and i don't think that that's what that's what the last particularly when you have an intervening when have an intervening cause if you do in this case and that was another problem with the instruction is that it doesn't there's the jury this case did not know p i criminal twenty three weeks away that's just not been mentioned that was the exact language used in the definition of proximate cause in this case and that pattern instruction is taken almost one as it is suggestion for a better definition of foreseeability without mentioning the term or see ability in that case there are different languages uses used besides in the natural problem sequences i think of setting in motion a chain of events of criminal twenty three point two eight which was the jury instruction used in this case more specifically both instructions and hudson and here use the language in the natural approach sequence to convey the element of first the ability why for that issue as far as the proximate cause issue i think it's it's important to mention that the statute although not required there's i cited a few cases where  emergency vehicle require the cars to stop as well as pull over even defendant mention in his initial argument the defendant was still going thirty eight miles an hour at the time of the collision there is also evidence presented that there were no tire marks or anything indicating such reaction the stock or anything like that by the end so in this case not only did we have a failure to pull over we also had  state forfeited that argument i think that it was easier for the state because the statute does require stopping in that instance you can change your theory but i'm saying that the state at trial thought it would its best here easiest to convey a defendant not acting reasonably by clearly showing that he also violated the traffic section at the same time which he clearly if you're on it was reasonable for the jury to infer these other drivers with similar position one of them directly behind defendant two of them directly in front of taylor all observe the flashing lights the car maybe would have been well it would have been earlier you would have been stop earlier than thirty miles per hour so the car would have presumably at least been a front of them a little bit maybe the whole maybe pass all the way  the patrol car coming at him with the flashing lights on as the other cars did and avoided the police i know that the moment didn't mention the one the same harm the defendant placed his penis in the victim's dinah causing her bodily harm bodily harm was the pregnancy in both counts and there was no evidence and defendant didn't even argue that she got pregnant more than once so same pregnancy counsel was discussing the failure shield statute and he says i took his argument to be that the defendant was required to stop the statute says that you are required to stop classes now certainly i think once and other cars coming into your lane of traffic that would be necessary to stop but that's necessary to stop independent of any failure of you know that point you're just stopping because you need to it's not failing to yield the right of way you just need to stop at that point but from the time of the first impact the time of the second impact was one point two three seconds the state's expert said you need one point six seconds to see to recognise react so you don't have sufficient time you have sufficient time anyway so my point is quite simply at some point during this chain of events it was necessary for  just think it's not maybe this is the most specific answer right but i just don't think it's that simple to be able to say well had it in hindsight it's really easy to say had you over there wouldn't have been there would have been an x this is not like a situation where there's a car think so then struction says that so that let's flip it around and say that taylor's on trial taylor's defense can't be well i'm not approximate cause because i wasn't the last in line x i think that's what i think that's what that portion of the instructions are for i s and that's kind of like what i was mentioning these other cases merits and i think johnson married there was a jogger and in the roadway an intoxicated driver struck the jogger the state's evidence of trial was her one else our there was plenty of time to react she was slow to react because she was intoxicated and those are the kind of situations that makes perfect sense but here we're only we only have the benefit of hindsight we're saying why had you acted differently when i guarantee you a different outcome maybe that  instructed that it needed to be a chain of events set in motion by the defendant i think if the jury in this case were instructed without instruction with an instruction regarding the causation jury what if what if that's why the instruction is correct that not sufficient