do is basically duplicate the arguments that were made in the briefs and the evidence are about the evidence that would be in the record deal so this particular case your honor to examine the wri so this is not a case like found where there's sort of this one bear order you're denying a motion now there's no transcript there's no evidence there's no argument there's basically i'm a blank slate becomes of the record in this particular case the record does contain all necessary facts argument and law but this court to review the case the fact that we don't have a transcript of the summary judge hearing this is not critical here because the arguments her presented in the this court found that there is no dispute as to the facts but there is an issue as to as the causation even though there's no question what the dog did was to the court found this was a hack to force the court runs out in front of the vehicle plaintiff and she fell over the court said it did not touch or it didn't attack or it did not dance towards the plaintiff another term that they used and they found the summary judgment for the defendant of the second case and the only other cases they cited it's the very sure there's a paragraph on what happened that's it and said simply the dog was walking or trotting cross the street and so i think arguably this court felt that the dog was acting in its true nature of simply just walking the dog was walking across the street that there is a question of the dog's not advancing towards the car and this vehicle would have had time to possibly take a look at this and do something about it and i think that what help maybe there was a question th and these are not judges these are people who volunteer i do it here by other than me and some of the other lawyers but it's unfortunately i've been doing their own case and i could have three defense lawyers and i would know immediately i'm going to lose that case every time if i have three of my best friends on the panel i'm going to win that case and i really i don't remember what happened on this case but the fact that we lost our attrition really have slowly means nothing it is a good way to try to get an award a pretty good case resolved but the read these cases even the cases that go the other way they always all of these on summary judgment issues i think in the here is just to know that i was that i think that they were probably felt the driver would have had time to see this to see a dog chronicle walking across that i mean we know the dog was involved in this incident but maybe they thought it was the last clear chance or something but here we don't have that we have a dog just overtly coming in front of this lady and you know when you read the jury instruction and i think that defense counsel just put those two cases right over the jury instructions that talk about over versus passive and if you know type of arguments were made what was for what their job was actually thinking when he made this decision and i put that in there the effect of it i'm not sure but i just think it's very reasonable for somebody to do a transcript and put that  for you not only that i think there is an awful and i've never done this but i read that you can do a three twenty three sort of a statement of facts of hey i was there this is what happened and this is what argument that was never got in this case either so we really don't know what the file judge was was thinking i think that that water was correct based on what that judge was considering and they were asked to affirm the file order and i guess in a factual issue here under taylor because taylor there was a summary judgment our hands by the plaintiff and this court is that there is no there is no issue of fact here and also this court found that there was an overt act by the accident versus whether the dog was the accident so that argument was made and wasn't that it was in the defense brief in response to the summary good motion there's this other stuff about active case for passive case because again that issue