there are two major departments that were involved in this case at the main arms distribution center in the flatbed department which would take eight and emptied trailer and loaded up with building supplies and when they did this they included on this trailer the rebar and they placed the rebar in the middle of the trailer on top of a load of lumber and strapped it down with straps so it was perfectly fine we have no contention that the flatbed department did anything wrong it department would have the supervisor check the work of the loaders to make sure it met their standards and the cardinal rule in the trucking industry as far as loading things is if it's not safely loaded it should go on to a different trailer in this particular case we believe that the trust department in the evidence or doubt placed the rebar from the middle of the trailer onto the side of the trailer and when they placed it on the side of the trailer there was not enough room for that two thousand pounds of rebar to said it was actually a twelve inch diameter rebar and it was sitting on an eight inch lip of wood they call it spacers that they use underneath the different parts of the love so it was actually sitting on an eight inch spacer and it's actually twelve inches wide so you don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that some of the load was not being properly secured by a flat surface that was a judgment by the trust apartment they had no supervisor to check the work of the loader to see that this was in the air so it got passed on down the line to the different departments before it ended up in what's called the vault and which is where the truckers  picture is bore that out they were taken by the store in sterling immediately after this happened because the department that was in charge of unloading these things they realize that there was something inherently wrong about the way that they loaded this or they took pictures and the young gentleman there at the store wrote on a twelve inch wide bundle of rebar sitting on an eight inch wide spacer and he did that because he wanted to send it back to the transportation office was its own little entity they actually made those those pyramid shaping wood trusses that we've we use for roofs so they had their own identity they had their own function when they loaded trailers they were more concerned about getting the trusses on the trailer then the stuff that they had to take off and then ultimately had to put back on so this in particular loader just found a spot that was good enough that was wide enough he thought to put this  these twelve inch wide nylon straps to keep everything together so it's kind of a one unit thing so by looking at it there was nothing inherently obvious to anyone on the ground that there was this potential danger that  awaited him when he runs for out of love and that's worn out by the fact that so many people at menards passed this load on to the next apartment and found that there was nothing wrong and they all wrote fine roadworthy no problem and even on if what what does the record say about seven foot up a foot or a foot up from ground level is it possible to see that there's a space of four inches that's on your boat there was no testimony either contrary to to the fact that you could not have seen this danger our experts had no criticism of this inspection their expert had no criticism of the inspection all the north spiegel at the distribution center had expert testified if they load is properly loaded it should be able to travel down the road and you should be able to take the straps off without the cargo coming down on top of you that's what he testified to and there was no evidence contrary to th rogue ready he merely testified that by looking at the document and if you hear that it had been inspected by the transportation department and the very next question that i asked mr cooksey was is it the end industry standard that department would in fact inspect the trailer before they prepared the bill of lading and he answered yes and there was no objection to it so i fail to see the the the logic in objecting to that question and the court d expert for the plaintiff testified that there was a channel on the visor and that helped the the hot liquid roll off onto this gentleman's body and defense objected said well you didn't mention anything about a channel in your opinions and the court said well it was your helmet it's obvious that there is a channel so these are right really not new opinions it's something that's apparently open to anyone to look at it so it really wasn't an opinion it was more of an expression of what this document said the plain language the trial court rules the truck court ruling n s t corded pointed out there were statements i believe just as part of you mention their statements by the manager of the trust apartment at the time that this occurred then that it name not have been good judgment for them to put the rebar on the side of the trailer he would have put it in the middle of the trailer just like the fla cargo routinely falls if it's for terrorist leave it has to be for carefully laid there were positioned there for the fall it just doesn't magically fall off that is the case they placed rebar on the side of the trailer and it didn't just magically fall off it was because they put it in a spot that was unsa as far as the defense argument that since there was no comparative adjudged against mr was and those who were there were there inside or over the new trial throughout this particular case it's obvious that menards did number things that were wrong and aside from their own it safety experts are experts testify that all the things that they should have done but didn't do and the only criticism that the defense expert had against mr was loose he was where he stood when he unstrapped beloved it was his contention that he should have been standing next to the rebar when he unstrapped a load but that's a ridiculous contention because that's the only place you can stand when you're in strapping a low there's no other position to be and and even the store manager at menards testified that you don't even know you're going to have a problem with the moat until you revisited during the trial and this issue about child support was never revisit during the trial so my position is that they forfeited their right to bring that up at this point because they made no objection whatsoever