that now unlike the vast majority of cases or discussion that's taken place with respect to market share lately the past here the legislature has a legitimate interest offend the basic notions of due process to find out if plaintiff can get damages from a defendant even when there is no proof that the defendant actually caused the plaintiff's injury i don't think it does in the reason it does you came up with this when the connecticut supreme court had to decide whether or not it's a statute that merely required a showing that it's the legislature's decision on whether or not simply participating in the market is justifies the decision liability on the question of whether proving that someone else caused our i think it's important  calculator's reasonable means by which to achieve their objectives and here the imposition of massive liability as an economic incentive disincentive for joining the market another import t goal of the legislature is that it's the purpose of this act is to ensure that he does have a source of recovery that victims of the illegal drug market have a source  when the operational damages provision is the exact say i'm the only reason that the defendant croppers that this court should i accept that argument is that well i s now in so doing the principles that were all held by this court and smith versus eli lilly can be reaffirmed and applied in the context of due process i think it's important is applied to statute and that it pursuant to that power however i think it's important to recognize that the test of whether it due process violation as per is similar if not the same as the test of rational relation that is applied to the section passed on to the police power and the reason why is because this court has specifically held that due process required to prevent the arbitrary and on reasonable exercise of the legislators police out now by that same token the rational relation has requires that a legislator seeking to address a public interest protect that public interest most of the means necessary show then that by definition isn't an reasonable means of achieving the objective to be clear we are not challenging the legislatures of bilby to address the scourge that is the illegal drug market but what we are challenging is that there is a limit on the police power and the method by which the legislature goes about addressing that measure this is a worry or a match or if you agree  mounting a facial challenge but it's not quite so difficult in this case because of the elimination of cause and fact and proximate cause ation essentially it encourages plaintiffs to go shopping for offense and stead of seeing the person against them and so the courts analysis and smith versus eli lilly really delved into his the most in depth discussion of the vital role that position plays in our system of justice vital means absolutely essential must be present and in doing so the court explained that it is an unfair system to impose liability so we do to the ability to pay and it also indicated that claim to have cause them harm allowing recovery from all manufacturers of the product who participated in that particular market basically the idea of how smith described in the fine of the legislation goes on is that the market liability theory has been shown to be destructive of market initiatives and product developments when applied to legitimate markets because of its potential for undermining markets this act express adopts a legislative crafted form of liability for those who intentionally join the illegal drug market so in other words the basis the concerns in the lily case was about a legitimate businesses and a legitimate market where the court was concerned that a statute that without causation that would be destructive of of this is sort of basic rights there specifically the legislature said we're going to use that destructive nature and apply it to the illegal drug market is that exact what you're going to use this exhibit or you're taking the smith case and using smith case for why they're doing what they're doing is that right yes they are and by the legislative findings they attempted to act are explained that they were acting more market share and certainly th some kind of protected interest that the us then in terms of rational basis you must of turn where there is a legitimate state interest behind the legislation and if so whether there is a reasonable relationship between that interest and the means the legislature has chosen to pursue it so the statute is very interesting very clear sets out its purpose and its find it says the further purpose of this their number reasons they state a lot of things but a for the purpose of the act is to shift to the extent possible the cost of damage caused by the existence of the illegal drug market in a community to those who illegally profit from the market for the purpose is to establish the prospect of substantial monetary loss as a deterrent to those who have not yet and are into the illegal drug market and then finally that as we were discussing the chosen to pursue the the fact that the market is driven by those who are profiting at great profit based upon the harm done to individuals in the community that is participating in the drug market and so rather than looking at the individual they were looking at the larger community and the destruction of reaction by the legislature which can infringe upon any defendant's due process rights so it's not that the legislature did not have a legitimate interest in attempting to destroy illegal drug market if the means by power which this court's jurisprudence has repeatedly held is outside the bounds of that police why can't the state regulate this illegal market the state can't regulate this illegal market and in fact they attempt to do so via the direct liability provision which the lower orthodox right now has as opposed to to tional and they've inactive various other provisions of within the drug dealer liability act to do so however it's the specific area liability provision that oversteps the bounds and infringes upon it in this process right in their attempt to regulate the market so i think it's important to separate that yes they are entitled to regulate the market and those examples there is a connection between the defendant that brought before the court and the plaintiff now quality they may not have to show that the manufacturer was negligent given the strict liability age of products liability they still have to show that the plaintiff was injured by a product manufacture are in the chain of distribution of the defendant they've brought before the world the most easy way to exemplify the absurdity of this statute is legal marcus illegal markets yes it can be treated differently i think yes i think they can be treated differently but what cannot be treated differently is the due process protections provided by the constitution to defendants defendants have due process rights regardless of whether they age criminal activity or a nonprofit all activity that may subject them to civil liability this case presents an op an example of the observer's holes that can and that's what i mean when i say when you remove positive fact and you remove proximate cause ation necessary elements to before you hold a defendant liable you infringe upon that person's due process rights because area of liability and i understand justice tice question and the respect that in your life and smith personally i believe this work per year was to determine public policy rads with the drug dealer liability nor are we contested that it is a proper interest for them to see what group that testing is that they have gone a bridge too far in order to enact that purpose because there is a limit where legislators police power liability stare at you that you can envision that would be constitutional and that's going to mean the and we heard all about the the obvious reason that the legislature is doing right they may not have done this when they're going to do the next right and may and maybe this will be a deterrent so how would the legislature enforce that purpose in a constitutional well i think that the legislature has t can act legislation that combats what they see as a public health czar but there is a limit to what they can do and how would it read i wouldn't read through to get to the purpose  injuries which you're seeking soon i mean that is a vital function of our law and the reason it's a vital function is because due process laws and both are constitutionally protected defendants from this on a reasonable imagine maybe it's impossible but that what you just proposed would not have the same effect that the legislature is trying to promulgated was saying you know this is a tough area to find out who is doing what we know they're doing that they should be entitled to damages as a deterrent right this really was going on here it is unfortunately you may be right it may be impossible for them to enact the all of the out of life building that they're seeking to do  by definition in the right liability provision this is a person who is actually sold the individual drugs or drugs now it overdose typically doesn't happen in isolation and it i manufacturer of the whiskey or the beer