the defendant driver was driving too fast under the circumstances i think that a reasonable jury could find that the expert said that there were two signs on the street and a jury should decide this there's binding you know not going to the jury the case last supports me completely there's no room cooper and cooper is particularly important to me in my view because they are the driver was only going ten miles an hour but the driver hit  even old enough to be jurors everybody is they don't waiting in all she was it was unavoidable it was her fault well let the jury decide that it was expected even the plaintiffs one accident reconstruction expected it was not unexpected there are two sides i one black it's a school the school owns it anybody who has a high school kid knows schools have the after school activities there were a lot of kids  and based on that i mean is that a question of facts that are in dispute to the point is the trial judge didn't i don't think should have been sitting as a jerk and deciding what based on these facts no reasonable person could decide department that was called in from the other players are all going at the time of impact twenty eight to thirty some odd miles an hour and she didn't get her foot on the brake until right around the time of the impact because the girl it worked with in th perception reaction time there's no one as repeating their own expert as now does she not only doesn't care for speeding doesn't everyone close to the speed limit this is why it's important in m you know the ice cream cases and so forth and so on where we have ice cream truck cases where we have the children in there or the person sees the ball coming out into the street here we hear that's a very major street in the south two lane street and we have traffic stop at that point that's like their expert saying she should have been going slower and i asked him the next question which they don't point out in their brief but it i pointed out but you can say that about any accident and he goes yes fast speed limit back but there is no evidence that she was doing anything negligent she's going below the speed limit she's being attentive even their per year and their expert says she's walking to get her foot on the time but you didn't hear anybody say come on come on no i did ok well now we have a question of fact ok is there a question of material that would also point out when you make that listen to that that evan rover who's the girl that ran out into the in all those cases that i pointed out that the party if the beneficial and it was summary judgment or it corrected for both that much more opportunity to avoid yes and m a question is there any evidence that my client was driving a negligent or an but for the grace of god would any reasonable person reasonable person in my client's position have been involved in an accident confronted with the situation as she was when you start saying yeah you know ninety five percent of people would have been involved in know where as a matter of all that fuzzy blue line was drawn but they put all that over at that point on a personal note i would like to say that in this case more to say now before i misspoke before would you ask me just discarded if there were any issues affect and i would agree it is a question of fact as to how fast a driver should be going under the circumstances it's always a question of fact to how fast a driver should be going under circumstances it when you if you end up in driving school for any reason you learn the act when it's snowing out or if it's raining you drive according to the circumstances in this case austin you drive according to the circumstances and somebody that a jury should determine whether this person was driving appropriately under the circumstances counsel just said that there was no evidence that the defendant was not attentive there's no evidence at al d he ultimately said the at his opinions were all based on the skip marks and the and and yes so there was no discussion of whether she was upset she was driving appropriately the other question of fact is whether she was scanning the road appropriately according to the experts their expert you're when you're in a school zone you should be scanning at all times that is the question she did testify there deposition that she was not on the cell phone even though she wasn't ask question justice and and what it basically comes down to is this point is that if you're a jay walker in the crosswalk you're fair game here you're fair game and that anything you do is ok you don't have to be paying that particular attention i this was a place where even though there's no evidence that people were congregating there which congregating there is i doubt if you that one plane out they were the only people it's clear these were the only three girls at the crosswalk at the time they were congregating there they were trying to go it's a terrible situation so there's nobody congregating there and i think the council misspoke when he when he was giving the testimony of a power expert and i'm six page see thirteen fifty two our expert did say that if that offended had been driving the twenty miles an hour his central would have cleared the way so that's is it the sixty one three five two he did say that there's there's a lot of talk about reaction time that and also finally after the the one officer who was looking through his rearview mirror and said he heard somebody say command combine we have no idea who that is and i'm not really rely on yes for much of anything because i don't know what it is i have no idea ok thank you very very much thank both of you well your priests are wonderful your arguments were very good then take the case