good morning my name is dave foss i represent the state of georgia garlic i'd like to reserve five minutes of the little time and twelve at two twenty in the morning and inexperienced truck driver driving in the wilderness in the mountains in rural pennsylvania question died mr garlock was working for trans tech logistics which was under contract with the carrier cult you see energy to transport water pure water and flat water to and from drill rigs sites owned and operated released in operated by anadarko on this evening which was the very first time that mr garlock had been assigned to ride this particular route having only three weeks of experience driving these baby bottle  garlic missed to turn it each week mountain road continued past the designated ran out and immediately entered an area that by all accounts is extremely dangerous for truck drivers is specially where the truck is a water carrying truck such that water sloshes around and as the truck drives on  downgrade there is something called liquid surge which essentially is like a large wave inside the tank but these events are all happening after he misses the time that is correct or if i was i think we're familiar with the facts and certainly sorry for the loss that was suffered by the family but your contention is that in a doctor provided directions to the destination and that if i understand your briefing that as a result of providing those direction your honor the issue in the case need not be defined so narrowly as an alleged duty to install lights in science the nature of the duty that we are suggesting is instead a duty to create the safest and most efficient way out possible given the work to be done and the equipment to be used and that undertaking is undertaking that the end of darko corporate designee mr morrison specifically said he undertook mr morse in sworn testimony under oath was that the end of darko drill team particular group but yes in general that's the case he said this is this is the first time he had to decide but in fact he had taken the same route was before i had need this was the first scene day there is some g p s there's no testimony to that effect you trip there is the there's a question of fact but i recognize the district court made that finding a fact all right so you see the nature you do he is not a duty to provide a sign or a duty to provide lighting the nature of the duty is to provide a safe route that's correct and if has performed an open procedure rather than using some sort of a skull the argument then can't be made that the surgeon having undertaken only to use an open seizure has no duty to be careful absolutely at this point the issue is not whether this would be admissible to prove negligence in the sense of a subsequent medial measure the issue instead is given that there are questions of control that have been raised as spoken by judge words this question right as well as feasibility at this point those things can be considered as we address the concerning the admission of subsequent remedial measures those of course would be allowed if they were to either impeach or offered for purposes of a stablish in control  the answered judge is that we don't know at this point because without defense expert reports we don't know whether feasibility or ability to control would actually be contested if they this accident not before who was headed by who i'm sorry what article the testimony about that is that it was actually done by q c upon consultation with anna darko which further goes the subsequent re putting signs on the public roadways or there is nothing that we were really and that it was the government responsibility but there is there can be a concurrent responsibility on the part of a private entity to put a sign up would then be liable if there were a failure to have proper signs on those directions and i'm talking about any internet service provider that might provide directions aaa provides trick to fix you ever use that you provide old enough to remember critics i know the answer is the good news about the statement three twenty three cases the good samaritan rule and assumptions of duties is that they are inevitably very very factually specific and limited to their facts so now an opinion could be created by this court that defines the duty in a way that is narrow enough that it is not opening the floodgates by any stretch of the imagination very very specific factors here where we talking about a remote wilderness site heavy farm dangerous roads carrying of thousands of gallons of water in tanks that elaborate water to slosh very very very specific facts that would go into the source rise and way back there where this well was just say there's trickery possible ways i mean a doctor sat down with the local governments and said ok we think this way is the most efficient in the safest it doesn't mean it's absolutely safe from everything in the world and he they don't have control over what goes on in that road if you take what they're saying which by the way this is the first time i'm hearing this today that we had a duty beyond placing lighting and signs because that's account or considered in determining whether they had a duty to provide safe passage now because anyone who thinks something is feasible are safe under three twenty three you have to have in our family that assumption of a g p s map from an option that shows and the rights but they were more in charge of making sure the drivers were operating properly safeway on their policies and procedures for drivers for instance how much experience you needed which in this case we know from the r only way to get to the destination if you say that it's not a relation by the seat this route why doesn't that include lights and signs to identify the turn off that was missed ok if we go that step further when we are getting into issues for example fax it provides us denies i meet a drivers on different routes to go to different places does it suddenly they think that this is the most efficient and safest route to get to point a to b do they suddenly then have to go out and second of torts as i understand it is a description of those particular situations in which it has come down through the case law that a duty definitely exists and that's a good that's the restatement provision that's what you are a lot of pot three twenty three as the duty that's what the pleading is that's what the discovery is that's in from greece in front of us it is all about a failure to comply with three twenty three so isn't that the duty that we should be examining when we are looking at right the allegations of negligence in the complaint your honor refer to lighting and signage there is no broad based allegation of negligence that says failure to provide a safe route to the best of my doesn't control the property is we argue your honor of no moment big so it's radical and it was feasible it could be done and it was inexpensive to do and it was terribly important for safety purposes reconcile that with the student three forty nine which talks under three for mindful of three forty nine it is either the fan of dark who had taken those steps it would not have had such a duty the nature of a three twenty three argument and the good samaritan rule is that in this particular case and in particular facts that anadarko is in the record fourteen sixty eight this is one of the few areas that we added additional signage once you got past an approved entrance to an approved route to an end of dark a facility that basically said no in a dark of traffic is what the sign