question of whether at the beginning of the voyage they knew that they were headed for texas i don't think it does because their position is that they were actually directed to go to texas by a charter and so at the moment they are told to enter texas and they voluntarily do so i think that actually controls this case that vote show their option if you're right about that then their option at that point would be just to break the contract and say we're not going because we don't want to go tax that's that's correct you're ours that i think the voluntary intrigue is the key here and a contractual obligation to go to the forum and do something there is no different than the normal agent entering the cases i think you still get to let's call it purposeful of ailment it seems to me the district court made two assumptions either one would support its ruling one is that that this is a third party case that leo is back in manila and as to its people it's really like a hurricane diverting the ship they had no expectation would ever end up in houston in that sense it was a pure fortuity is your answer that regardless of for to a deep and nonresident defendants tort will always give personal jurisdiction or do you contemplate things like the hypothetical in i'm  nonresident essentially here the employee's actions go over their employment i should do you think you still get percenters action even if you're somehow in the forum on accident and the reason you get that is because of the nature and quality of the act we read out of existence a purposeful deliberate does does the restatement or do any treatise talk about whether these are always separate necessary elements the act plus the enter deliberateness as opposed to involuntary forced  this leah's does global activities they profit around the world to suit management agreement contemplated they would go to other ports and then they were notified before they actually entered and you would say that constellation even does meet voluntar exactly i think is an even easier way to decide which is to say at the moment they were directed to go to texas and they were actually in texas they were only targeting them one for your sort of per se targeting texas by knowingly the time in which you can definitively say you're voluntarily entering the state you know when they do so so this isn't really at all like the a kidnapping hypo or a hijacking hypothetical state of the factual record and the degree of voluntary his that was are occurring in the record and will make the point very clear they were not somehow kidnapped or compelled to enter the form against their will and we know this by looking at the c r a manual and the records specifically sections three and four of his section three which specifies they employ the captain of the boat in other words they were driving the boat so it's not like their crew had no choice as to where the information it also requires leo to follow the law of whatever forum they happen to be in so it doesn't identify specific ports but it certainly contemplates that they would be entering ports around the world and they're expected to state i don't want to be glib about this but i don't think that's right they certainly could have done this job in utah for example but the other thing they they say is  two is where it contemplates sort of the bad weather fortuity so you end up in the harbor toward could happen is i read that footnote it may not have been essential to the holding then but note implies that you could have precisely the snare you do here insurer against the ship owner or manager it wasn't a case in the case of the hypothetical wasn't contemplating as the defendant who actually enters accidentally is a florida instead of louisiana then not somehow being responsible for their conduct there so i by i do think that if somehow you were waylaid and you end up in florida accidentally or let's say you're in new york and you get on a wrong train up in connecticut instead of massachusetts if you get off the train and assault someone i think you're still going to be present on such a person's restriction in that forum and the reason for that as an issue of quality of that contact but again that just factually isn't what we have here good morning your honour's this is an unusual case perhaps an extraordinary case where we acknowledge that we are being alleged to have committed a tort within the forum yet arguing that the local courts could have no jurisdiction over us is and again we're dealing with a very limited record this was not an evidentiary hearing the question was asked in written discovery was were you aware on the day before the accident that the boat becoming at the border of texas we answer that question yes because as of the day before we were aware intentional tort implies some voluntariness on the part of the actor so i think if we had made a voluntary choice to be in texas if we could have gotten off of the boat and committed a torque that would be different these are not legit we are going to be different know they're within the form maybe they don't have to know they're in texas but i think certainly if you undertake an intentional or there is a difference there's a differen the charter the owner you consider that's all in the room where he says if you want to sue our crew members he would have to sue in the philippines but his recourse should not have been against us i mean it certainly could have been if you want to get the an opinion we need to to specify exactly what lines were drawn so let's take the train example it ended up at the wrong station walks into a station and negligently bumps up distinction to be made in this case we never left the vessel for all we know the crew didn't know where they were we leo knew where they were because we we had knowledge that at least one day before the accident when you coming into port in texas but in the train making an emergency stop and if you had known that a vessel you say you didn't know that could document and say that so it's some point you're suggesting that some point in the bow might somebody change their destination to go to if he had asked the question of how long that didn't know the vessel was going to take was surely man the case were never to answer hearing on their own have it i don't think that's necessary because judge lake's opinion was correct he came down and said there is no evidence that anywhere and then that nothing involuntary about that they work and taxes and voluntarily you don't argue that not involuntary in the sense that we were with a gun to our heads or something but we didn't have control of it we reply is this assumption that we did have navigational control over the vessel i think they're reaching into the contract and see something that isn't there we didn't provide that c r a document that lists the various responsibilities of the crew the contract also gave us the right to sub contract it's not clear whether we go in for weigh the captain of the vessel or not they're making that assumption that there is no evidence that we did and so there is that we have long maintained the conduct that we've now been continued in the texas you asking where that would occur or the injury would certainly occur in texas and it might be able to be actionable there the difference under these circumstances is that that alone those before you didn't you didn't establish enough about previous knowledge i don't think that's true first of all the ship management green expressly contemplates or says that they would maintain constant communication about where the ship was going so given that there hasn't been an evidentiary hearing and all the evidence is a drop in our favor i think we've made the point of actually case that they voluntarily entered into texas legally i'm not necessarily you know when a one point they learned about texas being the destination why did you see this particular it a minor standing is that they're the real limitations considerations as versus louisiana state