specifically the plaintiff pleads that the defendant knowingly violated a duty a statutory duty that he was aware of a duty that was designed for the safety of those on the roadway he knew of the duty he knew of the statute and he knew that soon alcohol prevented him from safely operate an automobile but despite this knowledge he operated an automobile while intoxicated the supreme court case of streator states that intentional disregard of unknown the case burnished devices that outrageous conduct will constitute well when one hundred and uses the example like a crime in this case it's alleged that the defendant was driving while under the influence about all this is a crime and the defendant and his answer in minutes that he pled guilty to this crime the case of olmos the first district case further by his design of appropriately pleading when one is handed it begins by saying that there is no intent to injure required there's no need to plead that in order to get past a motion to dismiss instead of course look to see whether there are facts sufficient sufficiently played to support that there was a conscious conduct which would be natural which might naturally and probably  you can adopt your allegations of negligence the duty to cause a breach of duty and the proximate cause but you must go on to allege a state of mind in that state of mind being a conscious disregard in this case the plaintiff alleges ten individual paragraphs concerning the state of mind within solely contained in count two in other words the case cited by the defendant is more of a case that says you can't just change the first word of your charging allegations from negligent to reckless or from negligent to will had a lower reaction time when he was drinking he knew that he could not operate a motor vehicle safely while he was free and he knew that they did not hold back to him in those ways about all fix all of us and i was very careful to lay those out as individual facts instead of doing what your honour's addressed and to say well you recklessly drove a vehicle as opposed to negligently throw pickle and i believe that by pleading these facts in this way by pleading that the defendant wasn't cicada that he knew he couldn't operate a vehicle safely intoxicated means but i don't believe that the defendant's argument is supported by the record and i'll begin by stating that the defendant in minutes in his answer that he was intoxicated he admits and his answer that he was drinking alcohol and he bank address the second part of your question or the second answer to the first american point he does not specifically denied that he was intoxicated and pursuit of section two that six one zero of the code of civil procedure seventy two line three defense counsel missed that alcohol is involved in this in other words that there was always this understanding during the arguments of the trial court level that yes there was some intoxication yes or some alcohol back admitted in count one of the complaint and what we were really addressing was whether or arguments or if the judge focused on whether or not we appropriate play drinking consumption of alcohol causing the intoxication then i certainly would have focused on my alternative request within that pleading to repletion since we had drank alcohol but the courts to determine in fact in his own words to use this case as the case to ask the learned public whether or not intoxicated writing is the type of case that it would give rise to and he seemed very determined about the fact that there was no case directly on point but i think your exact answers that question for says there is no hard rule you're never going to find a hard rule that says what will form one in this kind of is it's just not that type of rule it's  bit i think they say it's a matter of degree which i really like you know you have negligence and there's a degree higher which is wolf one one and then a degree higher which is a malicious type of intentional and then you know within there somewhere there is an intentional that can also be  account so there is no way that we can define these are there necessarily ambiguous necessarily questions affect for a jury to ultimately consider which is another focus of the year it's a fourth district case which states that we need to allow these cases to move to another country  intoxication these are facts that are not mere paraphrases of young minds in this case but they're facts alternate facts that support those elements and i think it's very important to look at the winder scase because it goes on to say that you don't need to plea behind the wheel of a car and drive while intoxicated and this is willful and wanton this kind of this is the difference between negligence this is the difference between driving sober and looking at your radio things but i don't think it's usually mission well for one conduct and i don't think you get past the pleading i can explain a little bit under the criminal code or in the vehicle code scuse me conscious disregard for that person s each case which i cited and that court actually uses a notice plea standard that's been used in federal courts the possibility standard and in that case the plaintiff play intoxication and the t to driving under the influence in that case  drinking alcohol i think and the plea of guilty and the plea and i was going to handle both of those innocent of alcohol i don't believe it's you anywhere as well and the reason i say that is at least mr booker no i mean i'm happy to expound on that there's no proposition now in the law that says any time as i said before the whole is involved or even if there was an error doesn't that it necessarily leads to a conclusion of the fact that harriman in his art or not enough alone you're right and i think that that really is what the issue for this court is now whether or not they were played appropriately and that's conceded in my mind on page five lines one through six eighty seven for  know i don't i don't have a license in those states but i know that's not how we do it here here we have to play the wolf when one and then ask the court for permission to have punitive damages apparently there they review the evidence they review pleadings they review everything aside whether or not punitive damages are it to be honest at that phase i didn't know let me give a little procedural history please your honor we initially filed a complaint there was a motion to dismiss count two point we want to argue that the motion never any problem with extensions and so the answer just never came in we went through after the person and points but before the answers father went through the discovery the council reference but that was again after the first many complaints filed and fees act which apparently there was some law came down a case that right before this case said it has to be common law in florida which apparently she really wasn't in the interstates and so that's the purpose of the dismissal the second part of wasn't similar to