good afternoon actually still morning so i apologize for this morning this is a case where it was actually tried and two separate occasions in front of judge james fargo in the first trial ended up with because that issue is not an issue in a dream shop setting but number two even if you accept that the jury might yesterday at that doesn't contradict or call into question the jury verdict  his intoxication and the prosecution was at least one of the causes of the occurrence and as a result they close a plaintiff was injured and the jury found under their counsel the special a rabbit trail which clearly should have been directed toward the second count the negligence count still didn't contravene or was not inconsistent with what the jury found under the dram shop count but then you found a motion for a new trial attacking the amount of the jury's verdict because it didn't include damages or permanent disfigurement or loss of a normal eye in your sad i'm only making an argument out too but that doesn't make any sense right but again in the defended that was one of his main i should say sure but we were in there number of times before we actually got a ruling on this thing and it was piecemeal i should say here and there so really good good bits the main that's the main issue that we see with th right well that's true because if the jury answered yes the actions of the barclays or the person who hit your client where the sole proximate cause of his injuries and you know going to trial right but i also advance the manifest w really contradict anything about the elements that are needed for the the dram shop you objected to the special director a director actually objected to it in the second trial as well but  court for a number of reasons the judgment for the defendant in the trial court's orders i should be affirmed i think the overarching issue in this case is probably a twofold as your honour's know the court is entitle to substantial deference when considering motions for a new trial it seems as though he poem has changed tack a little bit this morning and i think it's important to note that  first so proximate cause is inconsistent with the jury's verdict on the jury i'm sure i did make that argument ok what the sole proximate cause have to do with a dram shop claim the plane the plaintiff in a dream shop face is indulge that argument if he felt that that argument that we made had some substantial grounds he wouldn't go for a new trial rather he would have overturn the verdict well as being consistent well based on the special and hasn't done that and i'd also mention that this court's rulings in several cases also indicate that when there is a grant of a motion for a new trial rather than a denial of a motion for a new trial  judgment for the defendant because that's what the codicil procedure calls for not a new trial what happened in this case was following the first trial we asked for the verdict to be overturned based on the sought is never never been seen in any holding this court or the supreme court is fad that is to take part of the verdict on one count and keep it in play with house money and go to bat on account the fact that the record is exceedingly sparse judge fargo and counsel touched on this there were a number of parents there was a lot of evidence that hasn't provided this court with any record alone for a new a new trial but if the if the finest says i'll take the verdict on the dram shop and the confusion resulting from that sole proximate cause in iraq  this case and because he's fallen short deference needs to be given t any way to uphold that verdict it should be it should be up held and there is been no showing and i still to this day don't understand how we fit if he did feel it was inconsistent i don't see how the where that was inconsistent with mr berkus saying as he bad then it was the damages issue which plaintiff did not ask for any type of bought a new trial on the entire county and certainly one of his remedies which it is occurred in the number of cases i tried before would be to i have a new trial might recall the personal problem correct it what it is because you know i mean i should have probably had them looking back on it now but i thought you know under the case law and just seeing what was done there it there is no basis t reverse that the dram shop verdict in favor of a lighter ok thank you for the briefs and argument we will take the matter under consideration and issue a ruling directly thank you