martin you can see when you're ready retaining the jury's intention in returning that verdict can we have a situation where we have intertwined a two biggies between morris and the red sea and brothers the time they are here being a critical issue to bat and the reason why address  if they're not found to be acting outside of the scope and there is no finding in this case a secure position is not an exception to their rule for criminal activity in terms of the criminal activity there has been there showing in this case of criminal activity relative how would that fit within your theory because if the additional action which was clearly a criminal action by this employee that resulted in what happened to your property so are you saying that the  writer said and the facts that we know in terms of that four hundred and sixty six pages we're not talking about her reliance on a page or two we're talking about in terms of the letter and the contents of it a clear understanding of her entire patient's chart so we're not just talking about one or two that she could have cherry pick from and the evidence that was presented to the jury at this case was that this is what fed into that matter eventual you occurring and that she had those records over for your time period as their employees so based on that in terms of the being and i never put in the record where mr guns for the time said to the court we're not really pursuing agency but the fact of the matter in terms of what was presented actually presented to the verdict form essentially because i think and i believe that we did present hour and a verdict form to the current prior to closings that did not include a percentage allocation a fat because out this issue of her and in fact it occurred after he left their employment and there was there that was the defense all along was that i would agree with you that that was their defense however the case that was percentage of the jury was that she took these actions to amass these have these records which was mr morrison she's the one requesting too much she's the wrong that is an asset as i'm clearly now during the same period and as i said not being disciplined for this receiving these copious records keeping them using attempt to try to get a preliminary review of the pattern jury instructions and then a civilian least we could then work on those and come back the following day and really address those that was reserved at the time as riot as were the rest of the issues verdict for arms should be separated and that there should be a separate verdict as to jane doe for as i write c n n a separate verdict form relative to their contribution case then we came back the following day and the court had changed her mind as to that and said no i'm going to accept their oaths and we did object at that point in time but that was the tack that the court was then taking after having considered that overnight and making her rulings the reason for the discussion and the reason for that is the court made her ruling fairly clear at that point in time so in terms of that i have to see you've read all the briefs i think the situation here again is very timeline six you know  centered in terms of the fact that she was acting as their employee and that our institutional negligence in pyar is based on her actions and that fifty reading instruction is what the jury considered and that  in terms of the allocation of fat we believe that that should not have her occurred on the net for it form and we stand by that in the sense that it now creates a situation where an employer can say well even though that person was an employee for prior to this time when negligence may have occurred we're going to seek elocution here and use that to block plaintiff from actually getting the right ability finding that's appropriate as to our misunderstand the complete really that i think in this sense i read the jury was not given any definitional at explanation of that and we do believe that that was a problem too in terms of that then taking the special question that doesn't fully understand how the answer is work how i answer that which is that lesser beings are going to term that they don't fully understand can they still answer that question and have it match and be measured to form their general verdict and i believe that in this case what they tried to do i think that part of that going in terms of understanding what so cracks might cause was that's why they answered it ah yes and that's that then leads to the fact that it's a bit confusing in terms but i know i'm in print and reading the record this morning when the judge when she was describing and reading the pattern jury instructions to the jury she laid out specifically st you're going to look at privet formed say then you're going to ordinary people who are not versed in the law and they think giving them information that they need so they can make a rational decision is usually a good idea i agree let me ask you to bring your argument to a close police thank you thank you for instructions in the case that's pretty clear that if you're going to object to a special rider tori just issued which would your instruction and again talk about the contribution of the person instruction says well you have to make a timely and specific objection at two days maybe two and a half days and the site week long trial where they heard from numerous arrests seen brothers witnesses who talked about the conduct specifically of michelle burress and ma she was an employee there that was the best of the we saw that these potential issues were going to occur relative to their special iraq tory it was properly refused by the court in terms of her being a party at that point in time the crimean it's ruling bendable clear that the sun committee comments the time when i made my initial objection relative to their not being enough evidence in the case to support a search proximate cause specially right atory in line with the fact that our surprise might cause trouble for  where it was brought up the following day the reson any further discussion on it at that point in time sail just to wrap up in terms of the institutional negligence again after they were finding and they were instructed never times by by the court that there were two separate cases being tried here that they st made the finding in fish and ralph plaintiff jane doe and against iraq sand and awarded in that fashion we believe that the right a true that the answered and then we do believe that it's possible who could've been confused as the term said pratt's cause and that no it should have been given in the st place but the argument is that since it was given we do believe but they are harmonize the bible amongst one another that the fruit itself and the special in right into a answer because at that time line that we're looking at where she's acting as their employee and essentially if that is the hospital and then separately there after that she could still be seen as the same proximate cause by the jury and that their general for addict should control thank you for your time thank you very much for your arguments