the next case today is dismissal the lower court's decision hinges solely on its analysis of the private interest factors in this case specifically issues surrounding the witnesses now as a u s plane to bring a suit in the lower court committed error of law and not applying the correct standard apart from that the plaintiff has identified and disclose and fully substantiated nineteen witnesses in total for whom massachusetts is  pulling their siblings from the pool pulling their siblings bodies from the pool and she was the st to see the husbands fathers body at the bottom of the pool the plaintiff contends that these are the most essential liability witnesses the bodies from the water and she saw the trout with how old is all and do we have any indication of what the testimony from the child would be well minute in massachusetts and then thank you there's a procedure where you can go to the montreal severe coroner and get a court order from that court can't is not part of the treaties we have for the exchange of evidence so there's a he would not want to appear in massachusetts i would plan to closing that witness having him identify his records and attempting to get his deposition testimony and as a unavailable witness which i think i could do and it in the lower court that she does indeed offering the evidence of these witnesses i'm not trying to say that you know these are witnesses that know no value to the plane just case they certainly do what i so in that respect i would answer yes can't recall it specifically as my expert spoke to a contributory negligence i would think that would be something that the defendants would want to raise to show that there is evidence in canada specifically relevant to their defense wish which they haven't appeared to have done get what i'm saying is that i don't think i think there's no there hasn't been shown to be a conflict when i was reviewing this issue it looks like there is no conflict that has to go through the choice of a lot of houses there would have to  a conflict but i think you know whether you call it canadian why are you are you are massachusetts law is far as the substance of the substance of it would this be outcomes would be except for the amount of damage montreal the beating heart of this case and the alleged acts endure omissions by in montreal hotel operator but as to its pull operations as well as its alleged failed response to an emergency in finally the exact circumstances because the father's death is recognized by the district court and the plaintiffs in the plaintiff concedes this given the location of this accident quebec law will control these legal principles that was a in the public factors plaintiff doesn't challenge them there is no dispute that all of the material events relating to this accident occurred in canada there was no conduct by the defendants in massachusetts that caused or contributed to this accident can it is recognized by the district court the majority of the witnesses and those with the most significant testimony pertaining to the hotel's policies m urgency response protocol along with the father's death all residing in canada how does that point to given the children's presence in the pool i'm sorry your honor is that last point true given the presence of the children at the pool at the time of the accident correct so the children again his daughter worked for an eight a there has been no there's no record before this court as to what evidence if any they would offer as to the liability issues the negligence issues in this case they certainly might talk about their experience with their father drowning but they have no experience in connection with hotel policies and procedures whether there was appropriate life preservers whether there was the need for supervisors they couldn't tell what they saw and what didn't and what the conditions were and when the two people drowned which would go more to the damages frankly it would i don't see how that would necessarily go to liability proving a case that the hotel was don't know because there's been no evidence set forth in this case as to what if anything the children can recall other than we know that we've been told they're seeking counseling for you know dealing with memory issues in this case to begin with so very far yet well the court did allow the discovery on for nine convenience issues with him not includes the ability to gather facts relating to both the private interest factors which obviously the court reviewed in much detail in considered the evidence that was gathered including multiple affidavits from liability witnesses including the corner and that provided information on a vicarious liability claim but as to the owner of the hotel relax a court there has not there's been reference as to observations made by fact witnesses who responded to the scene and then there's obviously initially had to look into it unfortunately we never got an answer we didn't have an affidavit we didn't know that there was going to be an argument not that the plaintiffs were in fact going to provide material substantive information on liability issues so your honor i don't have an answer for you when you finally see that they didn't you don't have notice that they were going to provide material thousands of liability weren't they listed in the case for finding that massachusetts was an appropriate form that they would be liability witnesses they just is meant that they saw what happened why we both think they wouldn't be liability witnesses all they would testified to was whether what the conditions were at the pool when the event happened well what i'm saying is whether they were liability witnesses or not and maybe maybe it could have been inferred although they were just identified as witnesses there was no in initial disclosures specifically stating that they were going to address hotel policies procedures or anything other than the fact that they were there and saw their father drowned i would submit that that does not outweigh the numerous witnesses that the court considered on doing a reasonable balance on the private factors that resulted in determining  testified to vicarious liability yes st they were identified as witnesses on vicarious liability as to the conduct of relaxer corp they were all identified in their briefs as witnesses that would be tied to personal jurisdiction over marriott to the extent that the plaintiff's claims they walked over to the boston copley marriott and picked up a piece of paper identified as a friends and family discount that american offers for employees and others there's no indication of why the plaintiff the seed went to the copley why he picked it up but those two witnesses have absolutely no material information whatsoever as to the vicarious liability claim being alleged in this case against marion for purported acts or omissions by the hotel owner in montreal they have never been offered certainly there's no against marriott is that they would be held might carry asli libel that's that's correct and right there to be so the only way that could be true is if you think that that's independent of whether  there their criticism is somewhat selective they offered no criticism and don't dispute that the court acted reasonably and applied the correct standard to whether there was an adequate alternative form nor do they argue that the court acted unreasonably or didn't apply the correct standard to the public interest factors the court they now however argue that the trial court apparently changed gears and applied a different standard to the private factors and in doing or not what i'm what i'm suggesting is that they the their star witness in my opinion is the back building inspector because i believe they want to rely upon that inspector's report as to his view on what should or should not be done at the hotel the court properly recognised as the court has done in the interface case case the how case that this is a rd party witness that it's not subject to subpoena power and we're not inclined to testify now situ since those are two critical witnesses the court actually in addition to drilling down on the defendants witnesses including yeah dave it's the seven of the eight witnesses on from canada who talk about the policies the emergency response protocols except where they actually went further to look at the plaintiff's witnesses and just in assess this one witness from arizona who hasn't indicated she wants to come to massachusetts through an affidavit or otherwise and her testimony was to be kno these are after the fact witnesses standing outside who observed the father being taken out of the hotel so odd to me is that you see that the after the fact witnesses don't contribute very much but then there's the only at the time witnesses are the children who are from massachusetts and then somehow we're supposed to think but they're not relevant to the case so i don't know and when the argument i'm sorry on there there are seven witnesses that were in the same role as the children that were there at the scene that were in the pool that assisted with life support from the father the called the hotel to get people to come up to respond to the hotel that observed those from the hotel time has run out but it can conclusion with respect to how this court has reviewed the public and private interest factors there has been no showing if you suggest russian in connection with the judges weighing the factors was no evidence set forth as to what evidence the these two children might offer at all so the fact that he's raising it now they're just that was not even something that was before the district court they had the opportunity i suppose t or what do you think the best president is to suggest that it's appropriate to distinguish between damages witnesses and liability witnesses for purposes of th well we have the deborah cox theory that says that there could be two applications both as to liability in damages but in this case we are looking at the court ways to through the public and private interest factors who would they must  there's the witnesses some of them would be critical to damages i understood your argument to be we don't really have any witnesses on your account from massachusetts that are critical to showing liability what i rather than contributory i believe that's true and i think that's why the court with which that assessment would fall into the public interest factor was founded i guess to be to be neutral and that's why the court found it to be neutral under their so it does make a difference and apparently the fisher court found the same that because that would be under whether to be a conflict of laws that's one of the issues on prop public interest factors whether the court would have to apply foreign law and or whether there might be an application that we could create a conflict and legal issues and they and they found them to be neutral thank you thank you