to the extent that the contribution act like me it's true to be big you was uncertain in application with respect to the facts of this particular case and i think the court converge legitimately fall back and look at the year and those two purposes are first of all to equitably apportion damages among the defendant and secondly to encourage so as far moreover that both the fives countless times and violates any conceivable notion with respect to the second purpose settlements interpretating the statute interested in trying to resolve the entire underlying case prior to trial would be discouraged from doing so if it knows that no portion of it some of that pain can be recovered by suggest further by allowing contribution in a cases such as this and this was the point made by justice schmidt in his dissent in the third district and neither dragon fly nor the appe liability has a right contribution among others and that pro rata share of liability is defined in terms of relative culpability and that's an important concept relative culpability we're talking about culpability relative to the parties seeking or from whom is sought contribution that i would construe that this as wel fact and there is language in the american national that case talks about the contribution line to defend itself and in fact but the court used it in that case in the context of trying to explain why the indemnity by a white curiously liable principle against an agent did in fact survive the contribution and i don't think this court intended in america actually of the vicariously liable principle or indistinguishable from the contribution interest of other court fees that the contribution act would should in fact are better at least two decisions that have indicated that the act should apply to vicariously liable since one is a decision by this court the ramsey case and the other is the case from the third one other point that out before turning to dragonflies missions has to do with section three the last two sentences indicate that w very clear and the obligation being referred to in section three so far as we can tell is the obligation of the defendant  we detail in our opening brief the many admissions that writing made with its neck and they're also a summarize no time during the trial of the underlying case dragon fly couch is at missions of negligence in terms of vicarious liability it never talked about humans are not supported by is that the statements are simply visions of vicarious liability because they say robinson never came forward with evidence of independent  is still an admission of negligence and negligent fault or entirely inconsistent with vicarious liability if you're negligent negligence and that it's negligence was approximately because of the loss and so it it it the issue of its negligence was taken away from the jury and the only issue that was tried by the jury in this case was the agency relationship between robinson and miss him and by removing the issue of cause of loss and that judgment has never so where does that get well let me talk about the alternative formulations of contribution that we have set forth in our opening brief we've set for three alternatives  think are possible greg and fly does not appear to take issue with any of those formulations it continues to maintain if i curious liability position but it so far as the amount of contribution is concerned  contribution as a matter of wall without the first alternative site is based upon the admissions of quote united negligence and quote same found one hundred percent at all just like it and to award one hundred percent if a defendant is going to make that kind of admission on the record for the trial court judge it ought to expect to live with the results and the effect of its admission when it comes time for contribution mr sampson that admission was in the context of the jury instruction that you referenced earlier or in another context they had the language about the same admission of negligence and liability that was in the context of an argument by dragonflies counsel work that was the context in which that statement was made and here earlier reference to the jury instruction you know without having to dig through your papers what instruction on that one number i don't know the number might  construction don't you think that the at least that the sense approach to where this is going least make some common sense that there's a common sense ideal it it's an admission of negligence and an admission that the negligence was a proximate cause of the loss not aware of any case where a vicarious liability has been held to thomas reflected what would be fair in this case i'm not sure that i heard of bias from mr burke other than to talk about related issues but the answer to that of course what justice schmidt said or more accurately much more accurately reflects the sense of fairness and equity under the contribution which are the purposes of  is that the insurance company had interest pleaded the policy limit and had tendered policy that within a month or two of the accident the fact the matter is that tender was not the proper tender and that opened up the supplementary payment section of policy this is all outside the record that i just don't want this court to be misled issues concerning the carolina casually policy or within the record there's considerably this court is more than just an error correcting this court of course as a policy setting it is fair and just as it should be applied in cases involving vicariously live but i don't think we've seen the case i have not been able to find a case that directly on point and that's why i think this just like in my notes here that we talked about that we talked about the alternative avenues of of contribution and the latter pages of our briefing