conjured up this factor of breathtaking even a limitless expansion plans billy as the first line of defense this rhetoric and hyperbole only clouds the complex issues before the court but i'd like to do in the few minutes that i have this morning he is summarized the very solid and settled legal basis on which our claims against a government are ground first and employer has a duty to supervise him plays under the restatement section three seventeen this is to have a law in hawaii this is the duty of a master to control the conduct of the service the duty of an long way and i'm not going to go into that i think it's priest extensively the only on keith case explains the rationale behind by giving the employer employee relationship the special relationship status that gives rise to a duty social functions were initiated by the company the company making and shop building cooler at the beginning of the beer business they were drinking supplied by the company after a while the company stopped and the contractors started supplying  a well let me just quote from the decision i think it's most clear there an employer can or should know of the necessity an opportunity for exercising such reasonable control over its employees as to avoid the foreseeable risk that indeed related employee will injure a third party in a motor vehicle accident where the employer is on actual notice that pursuant to traditions or practices that they themselves have instituted or condoned their employees are systematically and consistently consuming alcohol on company premises after working hours of the outside the scope of their employment and that's precisely what we have here at their there is no question that  jason hill here was in in floyd of the government and was drinking on government premises at the time that he got drunk and then left the premises and drove his vehicle in to my clients are you willing  military housing presents a unique situation unlike employees and residents of cities and towns the employment relationship of residents of military bases continues even during the off duty at home hours and  we've also referred the court to the provisions within rigid regulation they are dash six hundred eighty five which requires and i quote that there be a continuous command presence in installation living work in recreational support that the government can do and not all levels of command can go out but it doesn't need to be everyone every employee with a government that condones simply needs to be that there is a practice that is condoned and here the these relatively quickly because of the limited time and then the second independently sufficient basis for a claim in section three nineteen of the restatement this is the duty of a custodian to protect the public against dangers posed by award and again this is a claim that has been adopted by the hawaii supreme court very explicitly in a number of cases going back as far as the one nine hundred seventy eight  versus the state the following year in the cybil versus city and county of honolulu case the court has analyzed section three nineteen at some link and in that case it actually set forth the institutional custodian who has defacto for days your custody or control over the child servant or ward should be able to foresee the risk created by the other and can or should be able to take precautions against supervision the question is whether there should have van and i i submit that the nature of the confinement was no different in the tyranny although the purpose may have been different but the the confinement to verisign carry if you look at at the with the ease with which  or controlled such as patients citations prisoners citations and in rare cases employees known to be dangerous so i think we have here all three happen we have a patient a prisoner and an employee known to be dangerous all wrapped up in one package again the facts of this case fits squarely within section correct and he was known to be regularly operating his vehicle and under a white line under i believe the common sense that he posed a danger to the public and i'm going to address foreseeability imports the government  relied very heavily on the argument that we haven't shown foreseeability but i want to again move very quickly to the last two pillars that support our claims the government had a duty to follow its own the administrative rules using reasonable care there is a b why supreme court said this quote the hawaii civil rights commission the subject to a duty to follow its own administrative rules utilizing reasonable care and and on in denying a motion for reconsideration it repeated that same statement quote the cause of action which may exist against the c r c is based upon a duty to follow its own administrative regulations and it went on to say this is not a novel cause of action in a very recent case do of the all of the citations are in the brief the doe parents case was actually decided in the event or of two thousand and two about a week before reply brief was due although we referenced it in there we get the less lost site and it's not treated with the court held that by voluntarily adopting regulations the government assumed responsibility to perform its good samaritan tasks mandated by the regulation in a careful manner and then about a year later the ninth circuit  petty officers on whom the regulation imposed the duty were or should have been aware that gorman was intoxicated and negligently failed to provide care for him as required by the regulation the government would be liable and quote we have alleged and provided substantial competent evidence to support claims that the government failed to follow its own mandatory regulations in numerous respects and finally the fourth independently sufficient basis for our claims for the government engages in affirmative conduct that increases the danger to the public it has a duty to take precautions against that danger the best case in hawaii on this is fucking f o c h t m eight and first as honolulu police and fire departments this is a case which is alumina eighteen because it demonstrates the expansive nature of like the white court's interpretation of this cause of action here we have alleged numerous affirmative that placing and maintaining an under age soldier in various permeated with alcohol where there was a culture of alcohol providing inadequate care under a voluntarily enacted regulation one in adequate medical care confining failure to barracks where the confinement may very well have precluded as receipt of and not surprisingly we have echoed in the government's answering brief a statement that and this is repeated in their answer in brief on several occasions that we have not provided any expert testimony to support finding a foreseeability this is simply not true i don't have time this morning to quote from dr tremblay sexperts report i would encourage you to study that report it's lengthy it's detailed it's from one of the foremost experts on alcohol addiction and treatment in the country extreme risk to kill you would drive drunk is that it was negligent in of painting and processing the information on which an assessment of heal your wrist reasonably could be made to clinicians never asked the basic a mandatory question are you offer aid in a vehicle do you own a vehicle and billiards command was never given the information about the nature and extent of his alcohol problem or his acquisition and operation of his motor vehicle the evidence of billiards alcohol consumption is mind boggling less than a month before the accident the medical records contained numerous injuries showing incredible consumption of alcohol cookie typically has consumed one fifth of jack daniels a day and seven fits j d a week one fifth of jack daniels daily for a two year period these are three separate entries in the medical records less than a month before the accident and it's this information strongly corroborated by other that he had elevated liver enzymes his liver functions in a nineteen year old young man his couldn't maintain sobriety particularly in the various environments he complained of withdrawal symptoms he complained of insomnia that he was sleeping two to three hours a night he complained that he was drinking eighteen cups of coffee a day the evidence of the extent and nature of his alcohol problem is overwhelming and there's evidence that his command knew that he had an extreme problem with alcohol although he didn't know the specifics because there was not the the communication was mandated under the regulations any thinking responsible government employee who knew the nature and extent of hilliard's alcohol addiction and who he was greatly operating the pontiac firebird would have concluded that it was not only probable that he would drive drunk it was inevitable it was in evidence and if you narrow the focus to february nineteenth is there any doubt that the by hilliary would have been immediately obvious if they had seen him drunk drinking in the barracks as they should have or if they'd seen him stagger past the c q desk drunk as they should have sergeant says get that taken care of in the next you know before the next inspection get to get taken care of there's no discussion in the record of any information being transferred the sergeant about i'm going to drive this or  provided him a place to stay gave him the keys to a company car knowing that the employee was going to go out drinking was going to drink party and the away from ford still said it was not foreseeable that action case moved on and assumed that even if there'd been a death of a professional late even assuming that employer knew that the guy was a heavy drinker or an alcoholic there's no facts as to whether he would be classified as embarrassed to think that there has to be some specific evidence of recompression actually some specific knowledge on the part of the players supervisor o supposed all their claims against the doctors in this case and if you look at the allegations in the complaint and in that briefs most of the allegations they've got here concerning decisions made by the doctors of dress this is a contention that regulations can create a duty i think that's right on the plane from their opening brief relied on three statements section two  circumstances now and i think it also there are many briefs that the plaintiffs said this is not an issue that's ever been addressed by one law and i think the they changed course a schools and if you look at the law the law says i got to drive fifty five miles or fifty five miles an hour for i think the vice report would say i have a duty of care to drive to do something but that doesn't mean that the fifty five mile an hour speed here we're talking about our relationship station here which i think is all that i mean to the larger universe of enlisted men who are of other age drinking i think they are there potentially are a very condone underage drinking the proposition of drinking generally is not the one that is discouraged and it's not the scary thing and it's not so far away from the long wait on facts where the company thinking the barracks is half the same as drinking in the parking lot i think that's the the most crucial distinction is that if we're having a field exercise someplace where our men have to drive home afterwards and  knew or should have known at the time he loaned the vehicle to mclean mclean would act unreasonably by loaning the vehicle to the person such as she used who in turn would negligently operate a vehicle and cause injury others and the majority of the court then analyze the that dealt with a garden variety medical negligence claim we have not appealed from the dismissal of our common law medical negligence claim at pages thirteen fourteen of our  reply briefly deal with his arguments and i won't repeat those arguments here but with the duty as it is found it elsewhere that the case is not dispositive for the administrative regulation we rely on incompetently negligence and if they hadn't we wouldn't be here today there's no question that the government shares substantial blame for alexis to hawaii law provides for independently