knew about his mental and psychological issues none of them it was a risk for suicide suicide was the defense in that case it was nappy it was not the issue soon to be a jerk by the plaintiff in that case the other differen diagnosis the risk factors from the diagnosis all of that the issue was the big provide a safe place with those known risk factors in the known diagnosis there was no issue like they failed to diagnose or says things of that nature in this case this is all this is a funny case by that i mean mr stanfield walked into miss warbirds office and said by virtue of the self assessment i feel like harming myself or others most of the time i feel out of control most of the time he basically told her he was suicidal that triggered all of the steps that she had to go through by her own experts testimony by her testimony and by our experts testimony she did do a proper  attributing any mental state to him of why a man who supposedly is rational and the fact that he died by falling five stories a whole time during jury instruction conference that the jury didn't find it was not reasonably foreseeable to her because she didn't do her job if they find in our favor on into her it need to get to the city of chicago hears more supreme court case that makes it very clear that forseeable any legal cause is tested by an object of standard what would a reasonable person in the of the defendant and likely  have to be her but things like well i guess it does and i think she's looking at the end of the garcia instruction and defense counsel says that's the way it has to be so we're talking about this is being a subjective standard defense counsel says that's the way it has to be so this is exactly the way they want to do it without any implicit you know factor and that they're going to be relying on a reasonable person something that when they're answering you're not at all if you look at the transcript of the hearing now standing what defense cited there in the brief which they only cited a very short portion of the transcript if you look at the transcript of the hearing there were similar argument was made in the court found that there was a specific objection made to the enron torrie that it was preserved and moreover even if there was not a foreign projection preserves that when the women  were dictates whether or not it's going to control the case you can't really be charged these out because consistency goes whether it controls the case in this case form goes whether controls the case and th said we would be very hesitant to rule that there has to that there's a waiver of form when it goes to controlling the case moreira we don't we consistency even examined and from the cross examination took place as you're saying but the law whatever he said isn't doesn't change the law but the legal cause requires that the defendant recently first see the injury that occurred testimony as for whether his testimony was confusing you can argue about that but that doesn't change the nature of the question and are our experts testimony was clear it was not reason we perceive will occur numerous reasons  he died that day or well wouldn't that imply that i did but i figure out what the numbers are for a given date of the lottery for instance i could pick six numbers and over a period of seven drawings or eight drawings each of those six numbers commit was it recently foreseeable that he was going to commit suicide before he consulted with another medical professional who supposedly would then based upon that opinion would be an intervening pause and would terminate the proximate cause because my recollection is that it was claimed that if she had done her job and sent this man to the hospital then a doctor would have been interviewed him and would have determined as a doctor when you answer a an allegation if you don't deny the fact that you if the complaint alleges your ten dollars and you deny say oh we don't know ten dollars then the negative pregnant pregnant which could result in a judgment for nine dollars ninety nine cents so you're supposed to not only deny ten dollars as opposed to deny any liability whatsoever and the way this thing is written it doesn't cover the period of time from the ninth of october until such time has some other medical professional review this individual because to me it's pure speculation to say that it is a reasonably foreseeable  would have killed himself the next day probably not the further you go on in the future the probability seems to me to to increase until such time as there's an injured mean medical professional who will opine as to whether or not the person is or is not suicidal do you see what i'm getting there now i see it but i don't know that it's a guess we know what happened so  possibility of the individual harming himself and went to great lengths to point out that he in iraq occurs appropriate because it covered all aspects all theories of liability right and so the point is is that when you start talking about all theories professional who either confirmed that he was not suicidal in which case that person probably would have been sued instead of this person or would have determined that he was suicidal and would have institutionalized them in which case show is a reasonable hypothesis we don't have to give everything a reasonable hypothesis of consistency and i think we've absolutely shown that before this court the last thing i wanted to touch upon is that  had mentioned during closing argument that i had argued that if you know you should be answered yes it is absolutely foreseeable i don't have a choice the court had already determined what would happen if there was any answer no to especial