afternoon honors its place the court house so turn an opening statement the jury is deciding if they can trust you erred summing up your credibility they figuring out if you're trustworthy if you're knowledgeable if you're confident all to finally figure out if they like your not have the balls down too in was trustworthy they of course my confidence was probably shaken because i was surprised that i had to sustain objections during my  won't be admitted and as long as you're saying the evidence will show it then you can argue that you can presenter k stern your opening statement fungus you're outlining what you think the evidence will show and i believe we certainly did that in the opening statement and there were no we didn't claim anything in the opening statement that wasn't  done and it was simply a tactic that was used to talk about it was just the style but it certainly was not argumentative it certainly  asked that the court overturned that for the rest of the arguments raised i'd like to just rely on my proof they were really kind of kind of small arguments but i'd be happy to answer dress is pretty much an argument then there was a statement of the plaintiff would do as a reasonable person would have done or the defendant would have done as a reasonable person would have done that's another opening for an argument there but what it all comes down to your honor's is that if this is a situation where the objection should have been overruled the error was harmless there was no prejudice to the plaintiff this is an opening statement that was so evidence to be presented as was a closing argument the idea that somehow when someone objects to an opening statement that causes harm that results in a situation where we need a new trial or verdict should be overturned i don't think it's appropriate and cannot be shown by the plaintiff in this case as far as the jury instructions first and foremost there is no presentation of evidence to this or just to show the court whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion so if we don't have the evidence for your honour's i don't know how you can make a determination  your instructions were proper or improper i believe the court made the proper room with regard to all the jury instructions with regard to  more efficient than two or four is more efficient than two when this is a liability only trial and there's only one thing for the jury to decide whether or not the defendant is more than fifty percent of fault the i don't believe is supported by any logical conclusion and as for the issue with the modified thirty six point zero one plaintiff says that the verdict form itself is an instruction and i'm not sure how that's terminations that they're finding in favor of my client after hearing all the evidence but again to go back to my original argument even if the court finds th trial judge of uses discretion these are harmless error because the jury considers all the evidence and after considering the evidence they found that the plaintiff it fail to meet his burden of proof that my client did anything negligent  don't have that evidence before your honor so i believe the verdict should stand on the problem so it should be sustained and he ruled upon in favor of the fun and all these  i believe that made those statements not argumentative also the issue that i had with the jury instruction thirty six one was the fact that in this case there was a stipulation that even if even if the jury found that the parties were fifty fifty at all then it would still be a judgment for the plane that and by given that jury instruction thirty six zero one if you find for the defendant on the issue of liability  judgment should be or the law it or the defendant i believe that tablets and proper instruction there was prejudice to the plaintiff because of therefore the plaintiff would have some liability they would have fifty percent liability then instructions bad if you believe that the pla liability then the judgment is for to defendant so however with the stipulation never the place if it had been fifty fifty there would still be a judgment for the plane and so it misled the jury and that