i don't get credit for today not having an occurrence the fact is that mr wheeler was entirely and exclusively in control of the operation of this piece of equipment and the right itself apart and never ever moves know i did it is your understanding that you did not control the pipes is that true true or is it your own it's your understanding that the only reason the fighting with you mishandle it and it started moving in the direction of mr thomas is that true it's true if you did it if you did it properly you would have lifted it up you never want to trust jason you never would have ruled towards jason answer yes the fact is that he was a human being jason was already between a truck and a pipe when you saw him and the towards mr thomas mr thomas would not in the crush for died as a result of this occurrence is that brain cancer yes the mishandling of the fight entirely we doing is that right right mr starr who is an enormous separate under i believe the one that was entered on in terms of no there were various instructions from from both parties the issues instruction the group of the reforms ultimately after they were found all the time sites to make sure that there is nobody in an area and allows an operator to exclusively focus on one task however he didn't ask for a spotter he didn't warn anybody and he didn't he didn't tell the guy space the room here because i'm going to do a list all of those things were in his control to do all of them were part of what an operator does and none of them were fulfilled he simply came in our pilot he did both an area that was stupid because basically your honor he said he would get under it and would roll it give the jury based its verdict on the extent of thomas comparative negligence but either way there was evidence at trial to support the jury's verdict the issue of who the pennants negligence was costs which relates to prissie ability and that's so just the best bet he agrees the mishandled the pipe and it just happens that you know horrible accident occurred in  started moving the fourth pipe he did see mr tumnus standing with another driver mr johnson to the passenger side of the track just seconds before he started the attempt moving the  he testified that the procedure that we used to look at the time with the fork at that particular length was standard in the industry he also testified that he didn't need a spotter into these circumstances because it was not what here if you have a duty of care to people and the question is did he preaches duty of care to mr thomas when you know there's a question and this was for the jury to decide whether it was for thomas was not standing next to him that the stacks were heard by a jury they had no doubt it right and that was really a determination for them to decide  that there's you couldn't say that there is no evidence in the record to support their conclusion or that it was checking be arbitrary are unreasonable but under the circumstances that that trial part was correct dishes to looking at people i mean isn't supposed to be in command of the area to make sure that there is nothing one no one in his is my know but he did testify that he looked  assume that mr thomas would not begin to walk in between the bed of the track and the thirteen thousand pound pack that's about to be moves do we have any speculation to guess on whether he was walking to a constructor and that he was talking with the other truck driver the truck could get stuck in the mud so the three of them wanted to take the pipes up the truck and then they had to move out of the way and then they wanted to pull the truck out the same direction in which it had gone into this ditch and that's why the three of them are still on the scene and trying to correct the situation you started out by saying we're not sure if the jury found the defendant not negligent or found that mr thomas was is contributory  have a question of fact if there's an allegation in a nation that's the judge's john to step in and say ok that's out of the case now there's a duty there's a breach if he didn't feel it was causing action for some reason or felt that he wanted to allow this causation in fact versus doctor who says i'm sorry the guy had a preexisting kind of malaysia condition this was really the cause of his need for a nice surgery not so much the occurrence or maybe a percentage of the occurrence that might be more proper agony when you're talking about causation later he dies there is no question he died as a result of this by the admission of everybody in the case on the operator of the owner the other guys on the hire an expert from from the defendant everybody knows he dies as a result of this first of all they tried to but there's no evidence of contributory negligence because there is no evidence that jason thomas said any training whatsoever or knowledge of anything that happened to monitor that day emotional and a number twenty one was granted there was an order in on the need it was going to be no different things by their own admission this is not something where we had a coworker come in and say i complained to the guy and that's how there may be evidence of me doing this is a flat admission by the current selves so it says in the mission against interest and i think that i would rely on the record to be more specific about the iran we may have done both but in my in my opinion in making a motion for a directed verdict we discussed each of the elements throughout the course of each of those motions which included the breach causation damages the case if there's no other questions thank you very much for your time