parties on both sides of the equation that case progress for about ten months if you're so sure hook is is that ok that's correct basically after the local case progress for about ten months mr harkness decided he wanted to try to arrest my client's boat which is a little simple twenty six foot powerboat at depth point he basically filed the same case all over again in federal court but he added an additional defendant that being the motor vessel one love and based upon the claim against the motor vessel one love he alleged that he had admiralty jurisdiction at that point under c thirteen thirty three one let me ask you about the jurisdictional issue here in the significant relationship to a traditional maritime activity the facts here is understand where the boat goes to sinus and axis here first of all to address the nexus issue we do not believe that this kind of horseplay occurring on the beach has any kind of connection to a demonstrates that plane is injury was unrelated to the captain's operation of the vessel ration since it was hearing of innocent he's not he's not steering the vessel he's not driving the vessel he's not  vessel he's not assisting passengers with in grass and eager as the captain of the ship can issue there is responsibility for the sea passengers that's correct and in that sense occurred on navigable waters for example this case and many that happened no we don't we don't believe that it did in many ways this is like going to the plaintiff was seated on the boat the captain was actually the shore on the beach when he tossed them up in many ways this is is like the executive jet decision where the supreme court found that the jet was cleared for take off from the airport it then crashed into lake erie in that little waters the supreme court ultimately found that the tort actually occurred on land when the jet was cleared for takeoff the damages occurred on waters where the jet sank quite frankly even though we're talking about a plastic coffee mug rather than an aircraft we don't have a lot of difference in the sense that the tort actually occurred when the captain tossed the c well the allez tort because we don't believe he's actually proven damages was reasonable certainly but the alleged tort actually occurred on land when he tossed the cup toward the boat and then whatever harm that was alleged did occur on  activities in and around the water and they're determined not to be traditional maritime activities i mean for example the tandon case out of the second circuit in twenty fourteen which also involved tossing a beer bottle wright it was a fight on a pier with a plane plaintiff who was actually fell into the ocean and was held underwater in the ocean supposedly and yet the court said the fact that you have you know th will waters the spring course said no the toward actually occurred when the jet was cleared for takeoff on land so first of all you're looking at the site as second of all we're also have to look at the other two factors that your honor mentioned you have to look at first what's the nature of the activity generally not the specific action but sort of the general features general character of the activity is this something that is connected to a traditional maritime activity then you also have to look at the potential impact upon maritime commerce a ship apart is it significant that we're talking about boat captain and one of the passengers well it may be but you have to recall that the the captain was working for the passengers he was not working for the owner of the boat captain was specifically hired by the passengers and in fact the trial court expressly found that you could not impute liability of the captain to the owner of the boat because he wasn't acting as an a but notwithstanding that the judge ultimately imputed well while the judge did not impute liability to the owner of the boat the judge ultimately didn't fute liability to the boat itself even though the captain was was hired by n paid for by the passengers themselves in grand action is is authorized solely by the by the conclusion that this is in cases that are saying i would agree with unifying the vessel and the captain as one and the same system says the liability of the captain equates the liability of the vessel but the case is that the court relied upon that are cases where you have a captain who is acting in the service of the ship in typically you have both the captain and crew and they're both in service of a ship or a captain who's actually in service of the ship and injures the passengers through  traditional tight maritime activity like navigating the ship negligently not giving proper instructions for passengers to to you know get on or off the ship but we have here is basically a captain who was hired by the passengers who was not even on the boat who was standing ashore  know in fact the court specifically found that the captain was not an agent of the boats owner here and that's why the case the court trial court dismissed the claims against the boat's owner the owner of the boat simply rented the boat little twenty six foot powerboat rented the boat to the passengers then the passengers pacifically hired the captain and the passengers specifically paid the captain at the end at the end of the day so the captain was actually working for the passengers to the so the trial court specifically found that there was no liability imputed to the owner of the vote but the trial court back briefly to the jurisdiction trial court never did any jurisdiction on analysis the trial court never went through the side as or nexus analysis the trial court just simply proceeded from the assumption that this was a maritime tort and therefore there was a on a vessel that was in need order basically well that's i can only assume that's why the court felt that it was a maritime tort again we submit that the tort actually occurred on land where the captain was standing when he toss which here we have a situation where first of all the captain was not working for the owners was not working for the boat he was working for the passengers themselves and he was not doing anything to to operate the boat court's own express findings the court expressed they found that there was no proof of lost wages pasa future the court express they found there was no proof of medical expenses past or future exit thirty five the court said that the weight of the medical testimony establishes only a mere possibility that the incident gave rise to symptoms or some aspect of injury or damages so basically the court made all of these findings that the plaintiff and not proven damages with any kind of reasonable certainty which is both the law of th circuit and our local law but contrary to all of those expressed findings than the court basically made a fifty thousand dollar damage award with no reasonable basis whatsoever  jurisdiction over the in room proceedings that's correct they the case would proceed against all of the defendants other than the boat but just when asked every other question