juror stated them whether a personal trainer placing hands on the client and performing a mild or just adjustment which caused the injury were in dispute it's a factual matter that those are from both  jury instruction starting off with the express assumption over a set as issues involving express assumption of risk will usually used to be decided in the court as a matter of all in those cases too much the jury issues are presented and it has an example whether the clause that she signed would be in the membership agreement with the whole actually what happened to her is supposed to be up to the judge this must be up to the judge because we don't have any facts here which is why do we come into problems with the jury instructions which we go through the whole situation where we have a jury instruction that says it says did she sign it very soon because if she signed it in econ to within the scope of what the exculpatory clause that you didn't explain what they were supposed to decide on the firm to defense that it was in appropriately given to the jury to begin with and then if it was a close call which it wasn't in the standard your prejudice that we believe that there was severe prejudice by printing this jury instruction after which you know the proposed in jury instruction number twelve was proposed by the plaintiff which so there was statements in the trial by mr miles regarding the purpose of what he was doing and he stated like a chiropractor he was reducing stress by placing hands th training from a chiropractor and we argued in our reply brief and in our original brief that a lay person's testimony was appropriate for this you don't need an expert when you have the personal trainer saying that he's doing something he said that he did on minor adjustment and for a full adjustment after she was complaining about what happened that she should go for a full on adjustment with a chiropractor so he also had training regarding no chiropractic adjustments than did current you can just moves on other people there and to work including clients and other people who work there so the idea that insurmountable hurdle given the fact that the jury may well include it that there was no negligence as you pointed out that there was no injury and there were no injury possibly caused by references to personal training personal training being done by the defendants on the premises and it's it's up to the jury to determine whether the that's what the jury that that's what the judge determined there is it is what is the judge is wrong i understand that but it really doesn't matter in this case you know what i mean the judge from that she could determine as a matter of law that the exculpatory clause applied in this case there was a jury question i can't determine based on the facts that i have and you know there are a they were arguing th more normal throughout five six years and there are complaints of die fuse pain intake through our entire body were completely under entirely unexplained by any objective i think this is not the case because how how can we prove any prejudice much less serious but this is where the law if they don't show that this somehow made a difference in the outcome of the  they don't have the ability to do  that was a question written posed to the judge at the time based on the affirmative defense they cannot show that there was any difference made in the outcome of this case especially given the ample evidence to sustain a verdict for the general verdict for the fairness based on lack of duty it was presented the only exception to that rule applies when there's a question of law which isn't presented to the jury and it was in this case so that exception as to what in the he presented and we presented what the personal trainers guidelines for what they are doing right where it was there any evidence that what he did was a chiropractic procedure he called it a mil the issue of a negligence case is that you have to prove that there was a standard of care that there was a breach of the standard of care that all this evidence would come in in that statement but in terms of what the exculpatory clause says is it waves all of her rights to claim for for negligence at that point so we believe that this matter we believe that this matter should be remembered for a trial thank you