proper and that that should be one of the things that the court should consider allowing and unfortunately after the hearing on the post route motion honeywell has abandoned that position and they have changed their tune here before th and have taken a very strong position in fact arguing that this court would be required for the trial court would be required to enter j u n o v in its favor and that is wrong  and basically it appears to me from reading the decision what they were trying to do was sustain a large punitive damages award with nominal compensatory damages in the plaintiffs were awarded one are the plaintiffs that balk you think it's because of these chemicals our neighbors were spraying from a couple miles away but this court went through the advocates at the trial court level and sad in fact there was never any caused the injury the other one sat there was no way to be sure whether accosted and then they had one expert who said that he thought it did but he said that he had no basis for that opinion that there was no reason to analysis for any of it the situation we had in our case here today with respect to the jury questions in the jury instruction and in their verdict well i think it's a huge issue i mean obviously a big difference between price and business case we've never c d that you know it would be appropriate to find plenty of all negligent but return no damages for whatever reason the plaintiff in the bias case agreed that you would not have to return damages and could still find the find negligence and not return any damages and in contrast in this case of course we did have a jury note here too but the jury no in this case said if we want to find honeywell negligence we want to find for plaintiff against honeywell what verdict form to so that the note in this case was totally different than the note the other case and obviously the response by the court was was totally different as well so those are the negligence case was also awarded by the trial court inexplicably really because if you know when it's in our briefs but when honeywell move for a directed finding based on lack of evidence during the case the trial court said there was evidence which the jury could find that would indicate the plaintiff was exposed to it as best as containing break manufactured by the defendant honeywell so the motion will be denied nothing changed in the law or in the inconsistent with the evidence the testimony and the law including statements made by the trial court itself there are four alternatives that the plaintiff propose now take the first two very quickly we asked for her added to her or directed verdict and compensatory damages and i'm kind of taking those together because the directed verdict and compensatory damages would in fact based on our briefing be it the  or the adductor of the medical bills because the evidence in this case supported our perfect or compensatory damages it was undisputed that mr john had made so filio among that wasn't something that was contested at the trial court level so all of his medical bills came in on content that they were for care and treatment for that disease he suffered damages he testified as to those damages and that came into evidence so we counsel issues the jury  either the jury put in zero i compensatory that's true and that's why it's an inconsistent perfect it's it's unexplainable because whether they were finding for the plaintiff and negligence or they were finding for the plaintiff i conspiracy or both they would still have to return compensatory damages based on the evidence at trial you could not use verdict form a and return a verdict for the plaintiff and then find that there was no compensatory damages based on the testimony of the evidence in the case which this is back to where i started to say that it's an inconsistent verdict and it doesn't make sense the second and spent the most times my brief on what i think sort of whe started they was the reports for a new trial either i'm damages only which of course is what the plaintiff would prefer rather than retry the entire case or a new trial generally and under the supreme court's decision and how this they set out three factors to consider when you have a situation like this where the compensatory damages returns are inadequate based on what the testimony the evidence lies and the doctor and i believe all three of those criteria are bad the jury verdict is supported by the evidence on liability again and we went through in the briefing all the testimony and evidence that point damages and liability are separate there's no issue on that and if there is no indication really that it was a compromised verdict the case and i don't know if i'm pronouncing that name right in the supreme court decision in manders all of those cases support plaintiffs position in this case that a new trial should be returned in tyndall this court found a new trial was appropriate because the jury meant to find i'm sorry because there jury returned zero compensatory damages but found for the plaintiff a similar situation to what we have here right down to the fact that they put it zero in the blank i think in ten it was four different blanks so you wouldn't zero in for compensatory damages and this court said no we would have to find to find for the defendant on liability we would have to assume the jury ignored the instructions as to which verdict form views and ignore the instruction that there would be note no need to consider damages if you were fighting for the defense and the court found based on that that it was appropriate to return a medical negligence case same situation the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff but returned zero dollars in damages the trial for in that case did what the trial court did hear and flipped the verdict and said well really we it's that it's a verdict for the defense and the appellate court said no it is not a verdict for the defense and that's the wrong thing to do and they have held up for it said the fact that the jury chose the verdict form for plaintiff shows that there was proximate cause ation and that the jurors all agreed that the negligence proximately caused the damages in the trial court so the appropriate thing to do in that situation and so the appellate court said the appropriate thing to do in that situation it's to award a new trial the plaintiff and that's what happened the supreme court and manders that was a car accident case and in that case the husband was awarded damages but the wife and her boss of consortium returned for it zero damages for the wife and the supreme court said no you retry the case as to both people because it's just not clear what the jury intended by their verdict because there was as there was here evidence showing that there was an injury and that she suffered damages and when you have a situation where a party is injured and they suffer damage is and zero compensatory zar are returned then the appropriate ignored again the jury was instructed on compensatory damages in this case they would have to be returned regardless of which count the jury was finding for the plaintiff on and they were obviously gore and the amount of awarded bears no reasonable relationship to the law suffered mr dunham has terminal cancer that's obviously a substantial loss this isn't a case where the jury could look at the testimony and evidence and think he hasn't suffered any injury and as i pointed out when i first started it was uncontested that he had made feel a oh my which as i type of terminal cancer so there was not just some sort of damages there was a substantial amount of damages and there was a lot of testimony and evidence firefighter for thirty years he got back is a vietnam veteran came back started working right here in springfield and the job hey holmes which the court may or may not be familiar with he had done some a lot actually work over there new you could get sick from working with their brakes we have statements from honeywell at south for example their material safety data sheet which talks about the dangers of breathing and spouses and getting sick from that and that mr john was exposed nationally in the firehouse and so he was there twenty four hours a day when you work in those shifts eating drinking whatever he started off sweeping up the garage they service all the vehicles and  that just include the fire trucks i guess the fire department has things like regular vehicles cars trucks pump or whatever and they service office vehicles including brake jobs in the actual fire station and did that for a number of years in the late seventy's they moved to a different building where he wasn't stationed but he was every day and he testified as did other firefighters have they were in that building every day for training course seeking maintenance on their vehicles he will testify that he had the responsibility of taking trucks to this place and would say to the mechanics we need a great job on bass and many times would say why they did the work i'm the vehicle so and there was testimony that they had one guy that worked there that always use an air hose when doing the brake job which was you know put the fibers in the air we had exhibit four thirty eight which is from the e p a that talks about sixteen million fibers being released into a mechanic's face from doing a great job that mechanics their wives their kids can get sick from it and he was a corporate medical director testified that the type of asbestos fiber that's in breaks price  and that she knows of no safe level of exposure below which she won't get disease which plaintiffs won sixty in the federal register other medical testimony we had also substantiated that and mr condoms treating physician testified that an exposure he would have pathway we just think that there are some people that just get made so that we don't know why they get that they're just unlucky i guess you know the cross examination of that witness that involve saying so even if exposed to asbestos from brakes so he is an expert for honeywell i mean that's their go to guy you can be the expert that rape case right it's not playing that specific it's just nobody can ever get sick so they if you have made so that are you were exposed to  forehead it is difficult to identify where to mark the specific point but that wasn't the only question right the story that wasn't the no question from the jury there was another question from the jury that said if we want to find in a way that makes any sense because the reforms they provide i think are there is a possible explanation and under that reasoning the channel b was proper because the award go compensatory damages to the pla damages and liability and i will steal it right here in terms of why it's not appropriate just send it back to damages only because the defendant will be prejudiced because the case i negatives only is far different than the case of the just a couple of points i disagree with council by the the court can reconsider he started by saying well yes the trial court said there is evidence that he was exposed to as best this containing  changed his mind and changed his ruling based on the radar of decision but nothing came out from this court on chance that would justify the court saying this evidence is sufficient for the jury to face of her and then suddenly at the post judgement and i would be should not be entered if there is any evidence any evidence together with a reasonable inference to be drawn there from demonstrating a substantial factual dispute or when the assessment of credibility of the witnesses or the determination regarding conflicting evidence is decisive of the outcome and here you have exactly that situation where j n o v was granted in the case we're not only as a plaintiff standing before you saying yes we had sufficient evidence the trial court itself here grant's opinions were inconsistent with other testimony and evidence in the case and jury and it would be which not be appropriate given the given the facts and evidence here so i don't think the exactly the same as it was in conspiracy as it would be in negligence the conduct of that particular company we're just going to be talking about how that conduct was also consistent with and connection with what other companies were doing as well