to the court and the counsel that he in fact would be biased against the plaintiff and specifically on page fourteen of my initial brief i cited a portion of the questioning of the court between the court and mr indicating that you would hold plaintiff to a higher standard to which mr kirkwood responded yes i would yes i would and that's why i'm saying i would have a bias i would you know you you would really have to show me that somebody was really hurt and it was no fault of their own  and so this is you know initially i mean i understand that the court continued to have to question him in regards to this but this was mr kirkwood's you know initial statement to the court as far as his his view or his state of mind is how i would statements are in line with what the law and what the court instructed him as far as how to make this decision and so it's our opinion that he did in fact express i was only a clear opinion in regards to a biased he basically rehabilitated him in terms of moving him off his fixed opinion that he began with i would disagree with that i mean there were some general questions where he said you know if you take your you know obviously this is not a situation that involves your daughter that we discussed you know if you're talking about a general situation that doesn't involve your personal opinions is it possible that you can do it i mean i think he said ok i understand that this is not my case this is not the case i was involved in previously and i think there's there's a different standard here and i understand that i would i that i would try but even even when he did make the statements that said i've tried or i would give my best shot  he always came back and clarified that you know i mean at one point you know him and mr vying for references this portion in his brief and the fact that he said that most of both sides would have to make a good  case you know but he goes on but then he goes but what i'm saying is i don't play a sympathy for a plaintiff until it's proven to me that it was through no fault of their own and so i mean even when he was going through rehabilitation i mean mr kirkwood was still kind of backtracking and just say stated a bias and they never change the fact that he continues to state that the plaintiff would be held to a higher standard than what the judge said it had instructed him that would be applicable in this case and he never went back on the statement that you know i'm not and every time the court went through and gave him the opportunity he would make statements such as i think i might cry or i could try but or i'll give it my best shot right and so there was never any fact that those tenets are now loose they slid over the edge of his own causing a clicking sensation in his and his hank which the player can hear but also contributes to the instability and that because of that he now has to wear a brace on his ankle and in fact the player testify that he has been wearing a brace on his ankle especially since the day that this accident happened up until the day trial and then you continue to wear the brace that he was going to continue or to brace and there was no brace required but complaining of pain on that day he was still complaining of awkwardness which dr cortis described as instability and that he was continuing dr producer reporting have to continue to wear a brace and dr doctor petroff does not permanent condition again that clicking sensation is the result of the tendon being loosened and going back and forth over the phone both old doctors absolutely agree that that is a permanent condition but he did not have before this accident but he experienced brace before and now he has to use a brace on is a clever time he's doing anything that requires any type of physical exertion if he's at work if he's if you want to participate in any type of sport activities racing along those lines and so i mean you've got a situation but he also made statements that the clicking was not there for that the clicking was permanent and that the clicking was was the exact injury to which doctors were to use was explaining as far as what occurred on the date of this accident and so we believe that you know based on the fact that there are there are undisputed facts that mr lester suffered a permanent injury because of this accident but two thousand dollars cannot be  i walking out the door i'm pushing the door i'm looking straight ahead i'm looking out the door to see where i'm going i don't see how that's how this possibly of it is that he was how watching where he was going the fact is that that's exactly what he was doing he's watching  he can't see what's in my head or anyway so why would he be looking there he should be looking he's looking out the door look at where he's going i believe his actual testimony was i was looking to make sure somebody wasn't coming in the door so i would hit them or run into them so i believe that he was watching where he was going funny thing is that he was walking on his ankle after the accident i mean first of all their guard i mean it's after the accident so he would have contributed to the accident and secondly there's no doctors testimony read it is the fact that he walked his truck and then drove home and then drove to the doctor and the fact by him walking to his truck and walking from the work from his truck to the doors house back to his truck and into the doctor's office there's no evidence of that act that aggravated his entry in any way so therefore based on the facts and you would determine them to be and the law as a court would instruction which responded yeah i think i can it was well presented i mean you've got to sell me you know but that yeah i could do that proving their case i think one question would be why the need to spend the time with sis it doesn't sound like a juror who's just trying to get out of there for serving a jury instead it sounds like a juror who had a prior experience and his stand while you take the time at it with a spotlight it seems like this was like the biggest issue in a case that reality it was probably a five or ten minute position we also talked with a couple other jurors who related to the plaintiff which challenged the cause was granted on that to w with i believe personally that greatly hurt the credibility of the place this case requests for damages as far as the third issue is concerned dealing with hearing all the testimony was such that her book he'd never secondly in regards to jennifer hanson it hurt her testimony was that there were other factors involved in the reason for mr lester being fired from his job but the fact that he missed he was he would he had just been hired the fact that he missed ten days of work and the fact that he was unable to go from one end of the stores to the other like he needed to because he was in a brace quick to his ability to form his job and so that doc literally