corn field he called his friends he called his friends to come out with the skid steer and a truck to get his pickup truck out a cornfield and put it on the another county that that pickup truck to the front door literally to the very front door of that residence and then drag mr fuller's body into the residence and leave him on the floor and no point in time did he call there are pieces that are out there and i have looked at them all that have helped that unusual behavior occurred with much less than what occurred in our case much less  if you were called the authorities i do believe that and that is exactly what we would like to be able to present to jurors it's an issue of fact that we believe that the jury should be able to listen to hear in decide whether those actions m intoxicated on the whole that alcohol played a contributing factor in this accident perhaps it was perhaps it was drugs in a hole i don't know but i think that it is that that's really the purview of the jury and that's what we're saying testimony from those people see but but if plaintiff can prove intoxication by showing that there was consumption of alcohol and unusual behavior there is no there is no which allows that as well the focus really should be whether or not the defendant defendants in this case were priced with in the one year time frame oh the occurrence and were able to investigate would occur and formulate their defenses and in this case we did finally complete within the one year time to prescribe by the drugs shop and the defendant had plenty of opportunity to investigate they are not prejudiced in any in some irregularities that are within the record because these are important because a lot of the plaintiffs or excuse me if pellant arguments are their foundation is based on some of these mistakes in iraq you layer these so they need to be telling the story the nd time a deposition that he there was an argument caused by an unrelated patron towards the driver because four the common law record he makes it clear that the driver seat was on a barstool why this is the other individual was in the back after her elsewhere all the other living people that were involved in witnessed this occurrence have also made statements  are in the record and they all tell the story of it was on a barstool they never mention it was in the space he wasn't even in the seat also when you combine that logically if your feet are on a barstool how are you putting in somebody's face so the record just does not bear out that any feet were placed in anybody's face in fact the record disputes it and strangely the st time this argued was ever brought up was a poll about the feet  was caused by this unrelated patron over somebody's comma during his barstool choice while he was in the restroom another fundamental issue is the repeated use of inadmissible police records all no evidence whatsoever in the record that he had visible opinions or issues of intoxication just not in fact it's to the contrary which is that the last womb said when all this it's like where in the records i carefully read every deposition every speck the paper where is the evidence so point to slash appellant as try to make this argument well look at unusual behaviors look at unusual unusual behaviors or not we have allegedly unusual behaviors here while he says that he said that there are certain cases that they let they've laid out in their briefing how there was this is a not to get you over that is just those three facts are enough in it and respectfully that's just not true i set this up my home grieving a detailed discussion of each case and here's the big thieves of these cases are because i only have so much time to i'll be happy as a very individual  but there's three big categories of cases between all the briefing in this case three big categories when it comes to intoxication or unusual behavior getting over the her st there's a series of cases where that mere motor vehicle violations are not enough in an accident and inaction is not enough to prove a toxic patient even with three so following too close an accident happened and drinking that's not enough to prove there's cases and this is the appellate side of some of these that we just we further distinguish in our three there's another category of cases about car accidents where there is enough to say there's intoxication but there is much more to these cases about that for example zero one case was somebody not only was there drinking somebody missed this took a driveway for a turn that they've been taken all their life he also didn't use a blink he didn't do this they didn't do that there were several indicators that things that they didn't do in their entire life that they didn't have the comprehension to be able to do right before that accident another one was about bicyclist all therefore they were able to put all that together say that you know that is an issue of fact if you're intoxicated because it was so they were able to was a higher level of not comprehending what was going  physical beatings and assault that come out of nowhere between are between the briefing of all parties in this case some of those are set those involved scenarios where there is no provocation all the sudden  across the tavern crushed into a skull then the toxic ones around to just start beating on him in the ever show that there was no connection between the two men no words said between the two men another example of senseless being where you can for intoxication is a man ask for some napkins and all the sudden a guy that was slurring his speech pushed the man in the face and get out of here and then then proceeded to be after the initial filing in the year ahead over a year and a half after the statue of limitations right there was no such explanation why the these people weren't added before was no explanation why they could argue lost the society for why they waited so long why they never tried to a jurisdiction issue and down that that statute of limitation could stop them from doing that in a motor vehicle franchise act then they went on to win that then and that analysis or make an analysis of whether that statue of limitation was part of the elements of their cause of action and they found that that statute limitation was an ordinary statue limitation that could be told for example the suit was no question by