would recognize a duty of what's called educational negligence and the court after every considered matters decided that it was not but the case before your honor today is a case which involves existence of a duty is not an issue in this case whether or not the facts of this case asa to the breach of that duty or whether the circumstances of that case  him a license a lot of it yes so your father has cut to the chase one of the questions that's involved in this case is whether or not the fact that he has an f a a license and in fact address the court will be that in fact it is it is precludes it and the fact that he had such a license ends the argument but i think it does not and i think it does now for a number of reasons the first of the reasons is this automatically and completely answer that question so that's the first to the to this suggestion that having to have a license simply closes down the inquiry with respect to impress them the second understood that that regulation used to apply for example caroline ticket prices that that's going on applies to a number of things but it does not apply to tort actions for injury there's a vast body of law that deals with this arising from other cases texas is notorious for for having  automatic way me that it was reasonable to to let him fly this plane with these circumstances in light of what the defendants knew mr knutson is or what they ought to have no golden eagle was looking for a partner who were to participate in the play and so it had an economic interest in vetting tork to see if if he would qualify   have something to do with the negligent operation of the plane by putting mr truck into the into the pilot's sick now out there is there everybody knew that there was a problem with the way the tour flew this particular play the system mr levinson knew what if mr knutson didn't know it before he left it was i suspect the was dissatisfied and all of those things i think were for or for the jury to decide whether or not they are sufficient off to to meet their own or standard that a reasonable person would not have talk about circumstantial now also the proximate cause and even negligence evidence is circumstantial because as the trial court noted him and there's which which the defendants have if taken up as reiterated is nobody actually knows what happened in the context of the play so so that the the case if it's going to go forward for the plan circumstantial evidence of his failure to supervise then the deficiencies of turk were the cause of this event we have a good deal of evidence on that point some of it comes from his instructors about how the bank is playing to two steeply and the results of banking to sleep steeply is that it just all the higher the speed the more likely the stall becomes we have the evidence mr elevenses observation before this even happened they asked he likes to fly the plane we submit sufficient circumstantial evidence of a number of facts first that he negligently operated the plane he slowed it down to a point where that everybody's agrees including the owner circumstantial evidence because nobody sadly survive their crash to tell arsenal and the court you know what they report all i think it's compelling evidence and i think it's evidence suppress or or if a regulations would be happy to address those issues as well in this appeal the interest summary judgment should be affirmed because the court reached the correct conclusion there was insufficient evidence one that truck was incompetent inexperienced or reckless too that the defendants knew that terk was incompetent inexperienced or reckless or three that the negligent entrustment the aircraft was the proximate cause of this effect that and momentary negligent et the just by analogy just because an experience car driver i've been driving cars myself for over forty years if i want to stop sign today and cause an accident that doesn't mean i'm incompetent reckless or an experience that means that i had a lapse in judgment and i committed a negligent ect a momentary lapse in judgment is a negligent act but it does not sheridan talked about his argument that duty is not an issue in this case we completely disagree with that and the fact is and evidence is that that there was in fact an issue with regard to incompetence or an experience that's not the issue in this case and i don't think according to the law on evidence and it's progeny that there would be a duty for  crashed his plane with some forty years ago i think in some sense the general public is aware that there's a difference between flying at night and flying during the day i shouldn't the owners of this plane who are fighting structures at least knowing that there's going to be fighting might at least have some duty to see if this pilot is capable of that i think that as the pilot in command turk was responsible under the federal aviation regulations determine whether he was competent whether he was prepared for this particular kind of flight and i don't think going to the other is a duty for me there mr levin certain or mr commitment to have that duty this is just like the truck driver in the doll versus birmingham steel case which the court hell stand them allowing him to do something when he has not been certified to do it the night flying and one of the other things that he doesn't that create a contributory issue which then well it forces us to say clearly there's an issue of fact and i think that even if there's an issue of that it was europe versus the state or world and the fact that the arm that the motorcycle driver was unlicensed i did not have the proper such certifications did not mean that he was incompetent this is the same analysis it to go then i think that if women we look at these cases and we look at what the courts have done in these cases illinois courts the public courts the supreme courts they're hostile to the use of negligent trust not to make a second case out of one person's negligence you have to you have to keep it in the courts in what they've done is they've drawn a line as a matter of law somewhere there has to be a line that's drawn the every case that stealt with this there are never it never going to be blemish free there has to be something there has to be a line somewhere as a matter of public policy you're going to open the floodgates to that was in trust with cases every time someone gets a speeding ticket every time someone license and gets his license back there is no evidence for that and furthermore there's the issue of proximate cause and that there's no evidence that any of that was proximate cause in the question at also is in viewing mr torx abilities i believe that under the case law you have to look at the abilities in the aggregate and that is you have to look at the fact that mr turk was a experienced pilot he he was licensed to qualified to fly multi engine aircraft he had over twelve hundred eighty four hours of total experience including a thousand fifty hours in multiengine time and twenty nine hours in this particular in a cessna for twenty one aircraft in addition he had just finished make model specific the other fact i think that's very compelling is affected mr cootes and was in the plane with him mr canossa did not think that it was incompetent experience of to the extent that he had trusted mr turk with his life going  did he that any of his comments rose to the level where he took over the aircraft or had any concerns with regard to mr turks ability to safely bring that aircraft back by land that aircraft that paul walker your friend that that night either a factual cause or a legal cause in this case plaintiff cites to the fact that mr to it flew too fast well that would have been a good thing in this case because he got to slow  these other issues deal with style i just there is nothing that rises in any of these facts to create a question of material fact that mr kirk was in any way inexperienced incompetent or reckless for these reasons if the court doesn't have any other questions of myself i would ask that the court affirm the trial court's granting a summary judgment should have been sort of i in that that think that he wasn't maybe they didn't know but they should know the well that's the question should they so that i stress that i'm saying yeah well first of all night flying currency is not a license it's a set of entry in your log book right which when they fly they put it in their walk book they keep their wad book in their desk in their drawer at home and then if there's ever an issue the f a a comes back and says let's take a look at your log book and they look at your log book to see if you've complied with the regulations it's not any evidence in this case anywhere that it's customary to get out a pilot's log book and review his log book when you're going to let him fly your airplane that would be the question you might say to me well should may have gotten out his logbook and walked let's talk about that under the true facts this man owned his own airplane twin engine bearing kept at that same airport which he flew all the time on business he flew so often that garland in their brief before this court previously referred to him as known morgan stanley  eek he flew so often on business that that was what argument he adopted when he was going after morgan stanley he flew that often well when they say everybody knew what everybody knew was that he owned his own airplane and he flew surrey duty to not only know that he's been transition to this airplane but to check all his other credentials that's really the question because this is a person who they know from the airport they know has his own twin knows flies on business flying on business you fly way from chicago you're going to come back and you're going to land at this very same airport this is something he did all the time so yes there is some interest in the fact that he switched to this air point that's a relevant fact that he switched to this airplane and the owners know that he wants to switch to their airplane so of course the question they would naturally have would be can he fly at night it would be has he been properly trained zisha into this airplane because this is our airplane it's not exact same as it is now let's talk about the transition to this airplane that's not really an issue at all because he did go to a special school to transition him to this airplane which was the one in champagne called recruit training center which was sued previously and dismissed recurrent training centers for hope purpose was to transition him to this particular airplane the speeds the weight differences any other kind of differences that there are and they certified that he passed that so the transition to the airplane was satisfied one because you went to recruit training center secondly the transition to the sara point was satisfied because remember howard levinson did fly with him for five hours that transition into the air point that was the subject of the five hours that he flew with it because he knows he's a current pilot let me say one other thing about him being a current pilot we put in our brief in this court referred to it previously that mr torek by the way his action happened in january he went to recurrent training in early january but in the fall october of the prior year he completed instrument proficiency check with the aero another school and that school certified him through their instructor gene littlefield and gene littlefield gave a deposition in gene legal little fields deposition he said he was very competent i found him to be proficien and experience and up on his game not only did he testify about that but how would robinson also testified that after he completed that would feed littlefield i telephoned littlefield and i asked you a little field currency and he not only went with you know with them in a simulator he also went with them in the air point so this is really is about the depth into the point the people who own the plane have checked with a prior instructor they're weird that he went to a special school and they flew with him for five hours about the transition to the point this is all a careful checking about transitioning to this point but you're right they did not get out of this one block  but the difference is he's a competent experienced one thousand hours in twin engine airplane airplane owner pilot is it their duty and i believe i submit that the question of duty does exist in this case because there's a duty or there isn't a duty to inquire to this wabble and i think that's what evan says and i know your honor said well i think you're creating an extra element ok if you can collapse the elements into this way and that is if when you're checking his transition to the point you see nothing wrong you don't have a problem you don't have a reason to say well now get out your log book i want to check the f a a records and see one participating are both dead and there was a conversation that occurred if you're here's exactly how it occurred friday mr levinson been issued his five hours of flying with mr turk when he finished he s you've got your five hours done you're now all set you can fly the airplane and mr tripp said you'd be great because i have a trip set for monday and i would like to take the plane on the trip that's what howard's limbs testify to that meant he was going to go anyway in his own aircraft that ok so then he says b p i can take this airplane i would like to take this airplane so then mr webb's the sister wait this is exactly his testimony oh wait i better check with my older partner to be sure he's ok with that too so friday night they have a telephone conversation mr torek i'm sorry mr levinson and mr  the two owners and they talk about it he says i mr turk is finished his five hours he wants to take the plane on a trip on monday and i said that i thought he could is that fine with you mr canoeists and says yes he's already called me and that he told me about that i counted discussed it with and i said why don't i go along i'll go along because the two of us are talking about whether or not to make him my partner in the scuffle whether they would make him a partner or not that he clearly wanted to be by the way just as an aside he had give him a check for twenty thousand dollars which is referred to in their brief as being for training know the record supports that twenty thousand was a down payment on the plane from which if there's any plane expenses when you're flying it on this kind of a trip or on your on your five hours it will be docked it it wasn't for training it was the pay for the plane and then the rest to be used as a down payment or return so they had a conversation in the conversation was i'll go ahead and i'll go along to observe him for the purpose of the sighting whether to make him a partner i'll come back from the trip we'll have a conversation we'll decide now we submitted in our brief of quite a bit of points on this deciding whether to make someone a partner or not the analysis that we use was deciding whether you're going to join someone to be your partner in the law for it's a good example you don't just ask does he commit melt practice because you're going along in observing him say prince of someone's watching me today they're not here to watch me to see if they want to have me join their offer because they think i'm going to commit malpractise up here they're thinking do i want that guy to be a partner in my very important enterprise and the important enterprise of the airplane this isn't for business for howard levinson who today is ninety one years old this is his airplane which is his baby to wear out the engines and how quickly you wear out the engines is how quickly you'll have to repair them or replace them which are about fifty to sixty thousand dollars and so the owners are very concerned about how someone would treat the throttle because if you chop the throttle which is right from the deposition you then hurt the engine you wear it out prematurely if you don't crash you wear it out owners care about that if you stop on the brakes which was testified to something that occurred was a criticism long ago number of years previously that he would jump on the brakes if you jump on the brakes you will wear out the tires you won't have an accident you will stop quicker on the runway but the owners don't like that because it wears out the brakes it wears out the tires these are the level of what their concerns were this is why canossa went along this is what's in the record there is nothing in the record the man who said supervise allegedly is howard a lot of it but he did not say that in his deposition where the supervised word comes from is from a policeman who filed a report on the day of the crash who says howard levinson said that that's the only one word where this supervision ever came into the case howard well incident when asked to explain to said wrong word wrong word what he did was go along to observe and i'd like to talk about this when i was just a little bit more because the point of talking bout it he said howard robinson had a concern about his use of the throttles from the five hours that's not supported by the record that isn't in the record he did not he was asked in his deposition what did you talk about and what did you do it what he said was  landings we did pattern work ok pattern work is typical normal by the way pattern work is what their experts are quick to know that led to this crash their experts if you accept their version and that pattern work was pushed so i slowly what howard once and did with him on friday he did patterns patterns or landings the pattern is a square that you make around the airport to make a landing so he did the very thing if you say he should have inquired further i don't think you could inquired much further than to do the very thing that he was doing the next day except for one difference which you for accumulated he did during the day he didn't do it at night now i submit i think about that someone could get up and say well that was it they not at night when you're checking somebody if you give a test de barge and i have the bar exam on my mind is my daughter's here she just took the bar exam she was very concerned about you know well it's a testing a sampling of what you know it's not everything you know when you test it by the way you can criticize the parties or say you didn't test on everything because you're same pulling you're not doing everything unless you say you have a duty to teach and this isn't about teaching because remember to she has been removed from the case this is about sampling the owners sampling to see if he's adequately prepared to transition to their plane that's really what it's about think about it if you're going to let someone take your car towing your r v you'd want to know that they've done that before ok and you did ask a few questions but you wouldn't go out for five hours and write with them in your car while they were towing the r would sample he would do a little bit of investigation but you wouldn't do the same as teaching so what mr levinson was doing in that five hours he says he testifies i was observing and he did fine and that's why i disagree with the statement that he had a problem with the way use the throat it's not in the record and what's in the record is the opposite he said he did just fine he was a competent pilot and he did just fine so what he did is sample and that's why he didn't fly at night if you want to make him into a teacher then you say you should phone with him at night but don't use a teacher he was someone saying here you can use my point and he knows that he flies all the time on business remember morgan stanley air he knows he owns a twin engine airplane that's what he's using the flying business in fact he knows he had a conversation where he said pete i can use this plane me i was going to take my point and one thing else as a as a pilot will i think you always  pilots are taught a lot of law and the law that they're taught are so thick book of regulations and in addition when you're tested by the f a a on flying you're also tested on what the regulations are and what the regulations say to pilots are you are personally responsible yourself for your own preparation for a flight it here is what you will do you will do this if you will do this and you will do this and you will do this and you will fly if you have to have this and you haven't had this and you haven't had that and a person  responsible for that is a pilot in command right in the ranks so what pilots would think knowing he's a pilot is he's complying with that for us they have information that he's not you would automatically think that by the way you don't really know i have a license but you're willing to listen to me up here because it looks like i know what i'm doing hopefully it looks like i'm a lawyer that i'd conversant with the facts so i believe that testing looking what they did knowing that the f a a arge would require him to be checking it that's what was going on here the fact that they were involved can sometimes give rise to they had a duty because they were doing it they were doing it because of the ownership issue because they were thinking about it but they weren't doing it because of one of the quote that i have to clear up everybody who are there was a problem with the way to a crew of this point that's another quote from the original argument and i must clear that up everybody did not know there was a problem with the way he flew this point remember again that they called she knew littlefield engine little fuel said he did great now he did that in his own airplane knowledge that but he flew great on instrument conditions secondly nobody observed him doing anything wrong in this point in five hours that went through friday and this  we had a problem with this point and here's one thing i think joe was trying to say if there was something that seemed wrong then i think evan says you have a duty to inquire i think that's what well you say it's another element or he says it's a red flag if everything seems copacetic in according to hoyle recognizing you didn't thoroughly test you can test every single thing then i don't think these men could do much more however if someone said oh have you heard this about to record if you know this did you know that he's in a f a and force protection he's having his license lifted that would be a different circumstance if he showed up and by the way he referred to if there's something that makes him have to enquire further but if anything seems to be going according to hoyle and there's no evidence that anything didn't go according to hoyle in the training by aero into training by r t c and in the training or observing by howard for five hours that's all according to hoyle then why is it that they have the duty to say now get out and walk because look at that ok now one last thing about this thing about night time i'm looking at his logbook in there and we some spent time it is this true he was a curtain according to regulations that's the only thing he didn't have he had every single thing that has to be the reason he crashed or it could be causation or proximate cause there has to be enough evidence in this case to suggest that lack is right crash one thing you need to know about the regulation is it doesn't say you can't fly it says you can't take passengers even if aid doesn't say you can't fly it says in order to take passengers at night you must do this do you know how the f a a expects you to be able to satisfy them and i do this all the time you get into point by yourself and you take off and you do three landings and then you play on and then you say come on in my point now we can go find the f a want you to have recently practiced in the ninety days it's ninety days so that night currency complete lack of evidence that the nighttime was the reason that each did this the experts that they submit the whole say it was due to the night time they comment about night time and they comment that he got too slow he was too close to the runway and he made of this judgment as to where he was they say it would not be very easy to fly the plane because it's night time and it was also at the end of a trip and it was relatively new airplane but they don't say why he got to slow you have to have credible evidence that this particularly thing that we have a duty to look at and fin which i don't agree that we do because everything was copacetic but if it was there's an insufficiency of the proof if you look at his expert's carefully they don't actually say why he did it in writing that it is the most thing in the case and this is where the cases really matter why did mr curry who was flying allowed the plane to get to slow does anybody know nobody knows so how can you say it's because of something that would have been fixed if these pilots owners did something different there's no evidence of that and that's why it's speculation and that's the other reason why granted the summary judgment because there's no evidence to say it's directly related because there's no question mr truck was negligent there's no question he saw everybody agrees on them and i don't dispute our experts to say he got too close to the runway and that made him in an uncomfortable bad position but why did he that's in his brain and you have to nest why this is like educational malpractise and i would hearken back to that decision that very good right decision which is how do we know what's in his brain how do we know why he did that how can you say he did that because he wasn't my current as opposed to you did that because he was tired or he did that because it was the end of a long trip or he entertained all day or he would have done that the same if he was in his own air point which is a concept i wired to say here he's going in his own air point he flies out there they have the business they come back he lands at night at the very same airport and he does the very same thing nobody suggests any evidence that it wouldn't be exactly the same and that's why the sufficiency of proof is an issue how would any juror say a little more care would have prevented this one but you're looking forward you have to have reason to be nervous and inquire those are the facts i'd like to make in one of my statement and then i'll sit down and leave the sufficien police carefully check whatever facts that you think are important i would submit that there's a lack of facts that go the one way and that there's been tremendous mis citing to the record and i believe if you go to the record sites and we did this in our brief but we didn't have a chance to respond to the reply brief of course i think you were the facts that are being represented are not supported by the record i don't please up are facts particularly but everybody knew he had a the accountant for the severus she received the bills because she received all of mr commutes and personal and business bills he was a president and the owner she testified that primarily what he did when he paid things that he put them on his credit card and most things he put on the shredder so his credit card would have half of his charges be business and half of structures the person she would go through his credit card and make the things personal that were personal and make the things business that were business and then from the personal charges she would just take it right out of his jet which he authorized her to do so she would make it personal even though they might appear at the super she might think the bills were going to the  but in reality that is being taken from his pay and the reason has to be carefully counted for and i would submit this first of this is in a record by the testimony of robin and sorry i don't remember her last name but she's robert she's the accountant she had to  facto ownership because the bills might have a right in that office she also testified that it was carefully kept separate now if kim flew on business he may have submitted the bill to the supers to be reimbursed for fuel or something to his company and that's what jet you know that's what mr turk did when he was morgan stanley he would he would fly his own airplane on business he would come and that was why i became morgan stanley air those are the of this isn't customary use in this case itself but it's very customary is a pilot come back and say flew on business i'd like to be reimbursed for my fuel and that's a normal thing that doesn't make the airplane owned by morgan stanley and it doesn't do it here either and finally on de facto ownership  there isn't one illinois that says de facto ownership i don't think they cite any law then finally on the fact the ownership that's only relevant if you're going to say ownership leads to liability and that's what this the issue in this case what does ownership me you know what they we agree they were the owners let us in and then the canossa and know they're there to respond as owners whatever their duty is as owners and that's what we're arguing to you is that there's not a duty just because you're an owner to prepare every pilot for every flight it's going to take your point and that's the specific here when they landed on friday our lives of thought he was very competent very comfortable in this airplane but there can be flights later on that are harder than others the f a a put said duty on the pilot pilot decides he's going to go or not go to say that the owners have to get involved in that is to really raise the standard one last point about education of practice this is about the adequacy of his preparation adequacy if this that's exactly what the educational practice was about the complaint there was he wasn't really fully prepared therefore you didn't teach a great this is he wasn't really fully prepared therefore you didn't check him right i submit that if you found it to be here to check a pilot for every single thing because he's going to take your point you're going to make owners become the same as educational practice and the courts are going to face the same problems that the court cited too as to why we should allow education while practice which is how do we know what's in his head how we know that the reason he did this was because of his preparation as opposed to an oversight you know pilots sometimes drop their pen and if he reached out and go look up the airplane could be in a completely different position that can happen and that's negligence of the pilot for reaching down to get it and that isn't something that you can say is the fault of someone on preparation for how do we know  did what he did did he not off did he take medicine was he talking to somebody was an entertaining in talking to other people in the plane was he trying to do something that he wouldn't otherwise have done because he showing off how do we know those weren't the reasons he did this where is the evidence at all that this was because of something be skys could have checked in a more thorough check that's what i w breeze which i think was in properly referred to as being for training mr levinson testified about what there was for he said that was a check written to us for use of the point for the purpose of becoming able to fly it which is at five hours a day and a down payment on the point if he will buy now he flew the plane if he flew the plane in landed and they said fine you're going to become an here that he did one of his other business he would be charging morgan stanley and by he i mean trick would be submitting expenses to morgan stanley so mr garland had going along on business wouldn't be naturally expected to pay  to prevent a third party from harming garland and the courts have been both to impose that sort of duty absent a special relationship and those relations no special relationship exists here we don't the parent minor child we don't have a master servant relationship etc that's just not present here there's also no ron support the plaintiffs contention that a duty arises to protect another to prevent another from committing negligence just by virtue of being a more experienced pilot this idea of a common opening argument right by not addressing it we believe he's waived it you know the supreme court rules require you to raise all arguments you're going to hold on appeal in your opening brief to give the defendants a chance to respond and he hasn't done that  r there's also no evidence that there was a voluntary assumption of a duty according to paul versus what's all the supreme court said to voluntarily assume you need two things an affirmative act in furtherance and communicate to the person that you're supposed protecting that you're going to protect them there's been no indication that either of those elements are satisfied so there's just simply there's no duty or it's not a factual issue it's a legal issue do these circumstances give rise to a duty to protect against harm from third parties and that's really extraordinary and  law out there that distinguishes between circumstantial evidence and what's improper speculation the right i'll talk about briefly as man versus producers chemical that this man which i'm going to talk about is cited and dozens of cases and that is a liability cannot be predicated on surmise or conjecture as to the cause of the entry it must it can be established only where there's reasonable certainty that the defendant's actions caused the cause the injury a reasonable certainty can be shown with circumstantial evidence but only if the circumstances are of such a nature and so related to each other that it is the only probable and not really possible conclusion if the existence or nonexistence of a fact such as the proximate cause issues is equally probable and there is no reasonable certainty and the circumstantial evidence is improper so what we're talking about here mr young touched on it is we need a reasonable probability not just possible in a reasonable probability and the plaintiff has repeatedly argued sports car driver brakes this is a new plane running at night set aside all those things that are repeated his brief over and over again and this as mr young said none of those facts actually explain why the plane crashed none of them is more likely than the other none of them is any more likely than other facts that sort of circumstantial evidence at issue it's improper to send it to the jury and so the main thing is that none of the evidence after years of discovery and i think we did seventy something depositions in this case of course any conclusion and he more than another  clinton was taking a nap maybe he did everything in his power and maybe he did nothing there's just no way to know what you have here is for a gentleman flying through the night sky and metal to him there's no recording devices there's no survivors who can tell us what happened there's no way to know what happened and anyone who says that they do know what happened isn't gauging him on involves rated speculation and that sort of speculation should not go to a jury  vicariously liable and tight by their president ploy agent mr nuisance of mr newson didn't do anything wrong well that was at the service i did wrong the facts are clear that the purpose of the flight was to m being on board that flight was to observe the the operation of technique of mr turk as an aircraft owner you know you don't want somebody writing my brakes because i get i get three hundred takeoffs and landings instead of five hundred i don't want somebody slamming the throttles because what's called thermal shock and if that's how he flew his baron got blessing but i don't want him to fly my a plane because mr levinson is concerned it was about money frankly he was not concerned about safety of flight and mr you have to ask yourself would mr newsome have gotten on that airplane on the return leg from kansas city back to tell rocky if he had concerns over his own life because as as a one of the previous speaker said he didn't just a trust an airplane interested  day that morning was rife maybe or maybe she had a bad day with her husband you just don't know and there's a reasonable reliance doctrine that when somebody has the right credentials to be flying an airplane there's no there's no duty to look behind that  cost was going to be to the the craft owners now so i really had a couple questions as i went through just how you asked about how is this different from a standard commercial flight where there's there's a lot of differences between this and a commercial flight there's no holding out to the public here mr knutson ran this airplane like he ran his own airplane for his own business purposes there's nothing that ties any of that to service just tell us about circumstantial evidence i tried to address that earlier that this  pointed out which could happen to any of the three of you or me if i drop my cell phone while i'm approaching on a green light judge who are you to ask about the the inability for night landing i think that i think mr de young addressed that that is regulations puts that solely and exclusively on meat to be self satisfied and determine whether i'm competent for a flight they didn't they didn't take off that night if the flight got so late in the day that they took off and but then they landed after after dark so all these from the schools to get him competent increment and make and model there was no there was no there were no facts to support that there was anything other than a reasonable reliance on the part of either knutson or or a levinson flight until and tell a trick decided i want to go to kansas city and then while he's in kansas city try to fill this time with a friend to have lunch and a friend who i got this great idea that didn't turn that into morgan stanley doesn't i mean to have service dozens if that addresses your question they could go on to anywhere in annapolis you know the traits whatever and if he had a drinking buddy or up a flight attendant friend of his or flight the instructor a friend of his it would logically try to fill this time read the weather reports of the flight the morgan stanley business is being done with these guys levinson had no reason to suspect he had no reason to believe had no reason to inquire and yet he looked up in the sky ten minutes before he got this call and he said to his wife i hope these guys owner who is the right price responsible for it for the for those rules the case they raise the ferrari case talks about that it says that their perspire instability just not extend to a ba somebody who rents your place but somebody authorized to use their responsible and since instance they mention that argument and this is a case we didn't cite because we relied on ferrari it wasn't that big a member of the case but there's a case called rogers versus ray in texas which is four thirty five federal second thirteen eighty nine which which discuss that the owner is just as responsible as the pilot for for all of his regulations so you can't just say that it's well it was just mr mr turks job it wasn't part of part of our responsibility it was part of their responsibility  i really don't want to really do want to hit just the high points and it will be tough mr levinson told the police that ten had gone to supervise the flight so there's that there's evidence that cat was going to supervise the flight of this mystery there's been counted to check the record you know the have a look we it's a big record and we tried to get everything see twelve eighteen and again and see twelve twenty four he says he the teacher so the towards landing patterns well radek how did outas how does you know that help their case he to somebody who there was a reasonable question you know about whether or not they could safely use that that's our case so i don't think i don't think that way that's always been our case i don't think we've anything  thank you for your preparation