thousand and sixteen the complaint alleges that the product was being used reasonably and for its intended purpose which it has only two things you do with the slip one you drive a car on to the left through your present button to lift the car up so you can park another car under it will work under the complaint does allege factually that the dissident was guiding his son justin while his son justin was driving the family vehicle  showing of the plaintiff may be entitled to relief under product liability law it's it's about notice your fair notice that the defendant knew what the plane it was claiming and what they were going to have to defend against plaintiffs make absolutely clear the type of lift they purchased the way they were using it and that the way they were using it was the proper or suitable intended use of the subject lift that while the lift was being loaded with a vehicle that is being driven it argues and in retirement st this is a critical distinction but the cases cited by plaintiff were in the context of directed verdict motions not the pleading stage but of course your honor at the pleading stage if this standard and it's readily distinguishable they argue that in that case the only argument they put on paper which is i agree with that and in that case the plaintiff made eight complaints of the brakes failing on them and th malfunction the brits failing multiple times well enough to carry a verdict on the issue of one of the defective product under michigan law and snyder there was no allegation by the complaint of the specific effect because the brakes so  student and certainly couldn't happen hangs over like this because the st one killed him but the centrally insulator against the unless the appellate argument has changed to several malfunctions can be a plausible claim of bronson found that again that plane it didn't have to sit where the chemicals came from how they got there when they got there it was enough that just to separate any other reasonable arguable causes of this this was a demonstrably malfunction and i'll submit that it's hard to think of a more demonstrably malfunction this is a car where again you only two things you drive a car into it you press a button to live in certainly but when you're driving a in the pleading stage win michigan case law on point with product liability law does not require the specific defect to carry a burden let alone to move forward with a complaint  at a specific verdict would have to be found to carry a verdict that still doesn't answer the question that we're in the pleading stage pleading stage where the whole name of the game is fair notice notice that the defendants know what happened and what they have to defend against but were we if we were to disagree with that theory that you have that your initial complaint was adequate the district judge also denied you relief under fifty nine  which is about three months but at the time that that motion was filed no meaningful discovery had happened yet in the case in fact the st event of meaningful discovery that happened in this case that gave plaintiff oh you  cooperation we try to work it out and we did but the deposition happened in july by the time we got a transcript this motion was already argued and it didn't have any new evidence in the record yet until a couple of few days before the judge actually entered the order just missing pla any consequence so if there isn't there a concern here if the district judge said that if a motion to amend you had been filed he would have granted and then emotion  fifty nine dollars he stages you would under the rule fifteen test why wouldn't we at least allow an opportunity or why shouldn't the district judge have interests of fairness be implicated in an undue matter in that way well in the interest of fairness if the district judge said he would grant a motion to amend isn't there manifesting justice in denying we need to amend after the judgement in that the plaintiff has arguably sure the weakness that arguably existed in the initial complaint and i don't really see where the prejudice would be to your side given that this fifty nine motion was filed within the time for filing such a thing so i think maybe you maybe you can and the time we expensed spent in preparing for the motion was unnecessary but it's going to make it through judge could the district judge then order that your opponent pay the expenses goes back to the original issue how much is enough what what were they supposed to say for instance not not that you want to make their case for them but what is lacking when something let's say hypothetically i'm just thinking what if you buy a clock and it explodes and can't you just say i bought this clock it was the same condition from when i bought it nobody lit a fire to it and it exploded do you have to say why it exploded which part of the clock pleading you don't have to plead the obviously there were some reason the clock exploded who knows what it was many many when they painted the face they used they used the wrong paint we don't know  accident you know that's the type of allegation that was was missing here again that it's just not clear that there was something wrong with the actual manufacturing actually construction of lives and i think situation it was a horrible situation that unfolded in a couple of seconds and again using a product that can only be used to think drive a car on a lift is not a whole lot more to say other than that it's get across the floor but appellate counsel did concede in his argument today that the plaintiffs don't have to identify specific effect but that's not what they are in the lower court in fact in the lower court when judge cox it deliberate his opinion that dismissing the case when judge cuts himself cited her principal principal brief several points during the oral argument where where myself where i tried to make arguments the judge talked about the requirement that michigan law does not require a finding of a specific defect and those  those statements were shot down every single time in going back to ask me repeatedly whether there was a specific defect alleged in the complaint so it's and in fact even in the even in the part of the where he  thank you thank you both for your argument and the case will be submitted