of the front brake here and the clutch the trial court ruled that the agreement excuse me that summary case not even accepting and wasn't this release worded broadly enough to cover them well it was who are you quite sure i can see back in that i believe there's a quote in our brief that indicates how however the courts are less likely to force it turns out or least there are pro life as opposed to those that are more specific certainly the rule certainly the rule of law yes they had in order to be enforceable and yet in release must be specific in its terms and the nature of the ets the specificity is very particular it must be specific with reference to the it to leading from which the defendant will be relieved from a duty of care so the activity to the court their reading of their beliefs most tends to indicate dead it was or is a release for a rental situation of a motorcycle so we had to release does specifically within its terms address red oh and it also addresses situations such as repair and manufacture regarding the of the motorcycle training course was to assure safety and to eliminate risks that to eliminate the possibility that playing to would be a driving risk i knew to purse regarding the plane to the use of the motorcycle you're suggesting the language resulting from the rising oh does not cover the entire arrangement it only covers the operation of the motorcycle not everything else construction didn't all happen first it happened while she was riding the motorcycle and using it well the dad instruction according to the experts testimony that according to the expert a slow down and stopped but but even if we were to leave aside for the moment this question about the instruction we still would be left with the question of  what would you have released say to comport with what you believe that you would have to articulate i think any mention of a course of instruction i mean this instruction why else was she there i mean she wasn't renting a motorcycle she wasn't buying a point and taking down the line with her she was there on th negligent teach when she goes out on the road with her new motorcycle with all head from asia and she's just been top in her mind and for what looks let's say for example she misuses the clutch because that's the way she was ta to anything other than her use of the motorcycle in the course of this training program as opposed to something outside of the training program think if we look at the language of the families focused primarily on that phrase in my use of the motorcycle the release itself actually contains more language than that on it talks about  fitting of the motorcycle and i believe that the phrase that immediately follows my use in their release is these by any other person of the motorcycle i believe that they asked that the plaintiff allegations that the bike with improperly fit can be easily and are clearly encompassed within the term anybody else's use of the motorcycle i think it's also called this and the conditions under which the motorcycle is used which are clearly the in the answer to the complaint i don't believe we have to deal with issues of fact with respect to the interpretation of the contract because we don't need to look there's no ambiguity is within the release itself  release is very clear the trial court said that is terms were clear and explicit we don't get to an issue of material fact because the release is so clear and the everything to do with the training course is clearly contest within the terms of their release her use of the motorcycle the conditions under which it is operated and counsel doesn't cite to you and i don't believe that there is any cases that specifically require that the term they had to do certainly before she visited for a motorcycle that she didn't know that she was releasing and half her testimony in the time her deposition was that she understood that she was releasing the people offering the course from any liability should be hurt so her own testimony that she understood that she was releasing the people offering the course from liability should she be hurt i'm not sure how we can deter that not to mean that she understood that she was releasing them with all the people teaching the course the people teaching the course of the people providing the instruction if she's not releasing the strike if she's not releasing blood is that is part of the language out of the use of the motorcycle out of the use of the motorcycle by any other person out of the operation of the motorcycle and the conditions under which the motorcycle is new is the language from the earl this is not a situation where she was really saying it even in the situation where she was injured because she slipped and fell on the floor inside the dealership on her way out to you right the motorcycle this is a situation where she specifically there to learn to ride a motorcycle and in doing so she actually had to ride a motorcycle she was injured in precisely the way that is contemplated  by requiring her to sign a release the she would be injured while learning to ride the motorcycle as a part of the course and that is what this really and the trial court i think appropriately hold that the terms of the release were clear ninety council's argument that the negligence occurred prior to her actually riding a motorcycle in that it related to improper fitting and the a false distinction between instruction and use she argues that instruction occurred before the use obviously that frankly ignores the fact that it's a five day training course all of the direct supervision and instruction of the cour by that argument and found that the language in the release was broad enough with respect to the term in meant to include all the matters related to the event including i think they specifically referenced a time trial which i believe  related to the tow trucks driving around the course and that they could not do force of then the broader term event from the specific raise that they couldn't simply say well because they actually were writing the raise at the time you were injured it doesn't count as part of the event i would argue that that is similar to the situation that we have in this case which is that you cannot divorce instruction from use the instruction was ongoing and the entire time they use was ongoing and nearly the entire time i think they are one and the same and it tends to defy out improperly that which is contained in the release which is arising resulting my use use of any other person and which would certainly give her the argument is that the improper fitting occurred before the years meaning literally before she got on the motorcycle and started to drive or the allegations that they improperly didn't teach or cover the clutch properly in part being something to do with the brake as well that's all knowing the entire time as well that's that's ongoing i think testimony is that the first thing they did was sat on the motorcycle and you put their hands in position so that certainly instruction she certainly using the motorcycle at the time that instruction is occurring i don't know wants to place and this is on the fact that she thought she wouldn't get hurt that she was surprised it happened but i don't believe that that  does anything to compare her admitted understanding of what the release entails as similarly the plaintiff's also tries to talk her out of her experience in there but that somehow immaterial to the to the consideration on this case then i don't believe there are any cases that reference the experience of the writer essentially what the plaintiffs want this courts to do is to expand the requirements of what you need to put into a release in order for it to be a factor what the plaintiff is seeking is to have some sort of a laundry list of every possible way someone could get hurt before they sign a release  has to do with whether or not a risk that is the sume is normal in ordinary to the activit that the defendant is performing there isn't any question here but that the defending and is performing an instructional course we would submit to your honor's that what is typical in ordinary for an instructor the teacher in virtually any context is that they are performing by the book so to speak that they are in part even an accurate information and that they are properly guiding the student in the ende to impart in every information and to lead the student in a way that's inappropriate as this defendant did try providing the too powerful but when you have a consequence that for the ribs that is not ordinary to the endeavor what the case l acting consistently for instance with those things that were represented in the handbook that in the two part to be accident was not the deer running in front of the plaintiff the accident was facts are markedly different but the underlying legal question is whether or not the conduct that the that cause the risk whether or not there was reasonably foreseeable presents a question of back so that the question of the act in this case is whether or not it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant would act inconsistently with the representations made in the the defending him from this type of conduct