for sure the fact the manufacturer happened also to be the main fixture distributor of the component parts doesn't change the fact that they would be responsible for trick liability for in jeopardy so there are various names or were available in one nine hundred ninety eight when this thing was manufactured resign that would have the motion detection don't have the switch you've got a warning why this happened and there's no reason i'm alternative explanation ok i think when you make the customer up there should be some redundancy and there should be something because the elementary to the design you don't want something to fail in the position we're going to jeopardize the very safety that you're you've designed to but the thing was properly calibrated i didn't think that was necessary to defeat the motion for summary judgment i didn't think i hit the feet of defense position factually claim how they thought the action happened it would it was it's possible it could have been this this this understand your argument is that you've eliminated all those other possibilities but the court also didn't you did find it believed that the opinion was speculative based upon the this morning the record determination the plaintiffs had failed to prove that this which was unreasonably dangerous absolutely no evidence that it was unreasonably dangerous at the time that it left stanley's hands clean and didn't challenge that signing on appeal there's nothing in plaintiff's brief than justified in entering summary judgment stanley's behalf with respect to the negligence counts we've spent a lot of time talking about the proximate cause and of the negligence action we skipped right over plaintiff's counsel has a duty and breach of duty there is no testimony in this record that establishes a standard for the design manufacture of breakouts which is there's simply nothing here plain expert one expert mr davis never said a standard never said these her how breakouts switches are supposed to be designed these are how they're supposed to work he never is going to testimony as to the normal life expectancy not a little bit we're going to done in terms of what it could be how it would function in fact mr davis testified i don't know what the life expectancy for a stanley breakouts which is he said that in his deposition this particular door at the foreign fleet was ten years later in two thousand and six breakouts which was replaced a bad time so we have this story in place for ten years does this case boiled down to seen this no have you ever heard of this no how do you know that this happened the only way you would know is if you took that switch out of the box open it up and look we have three a w employees walt and ray go with a combined about sixty five years of experience installing stanley taurus none of them have ever heard of this happening none of them have ever seen this their testimony was unanimously wh fail they fail in the open position and the automatic function of the door stops working did he did anyone just read that there would be physical evidence of that if they had examined yes so there would be some burn mark or black and to look at the video or i don't remember even if the door was open more than five degrees that doesn't make it a negligent design it doesn't make it a negligent manufacture  this door in its thirteenth year is the breakouts which did not break at that point that mr davis hasn't testified well that's thirteen years later it begs the design of the manufacturing defect plus we have the all you're giving me are possibilities and speculation when you put on a circumstantial case as your honor has sad you have to prove to be a reasonable probability that this is the way it happened and again we're still only about the proximate cause element of this cause of action we still need somebody to establish that there was a duty reached here that there was a standard out there for break out switches that stanley didn't comply with and that it with the it could have been jury duty we do have been told me we do have a duty what i'm saying i'm not saying we don't have a duty i didn't articulate that well what i'm saying is somebody has to establish what their duty is what's the standard nobody has said that including mr davis nobody has said these door should last this line this breakouts which should function in these circumstances this is an alternative feasible design that was available in the industry which is what we had in not the sanchez case but the second case we cited this case is no different than say a chance plaintiff wants to say i was injured there must be something wrong with this product but that's not the way it works there has to be a standard that the defendant didn't comply with results in the injury we have nothing like that in this case all we have is an expert who admits to never having tested the door never having tested any part of the door never seeing the door having no information as to life expectancy of a stanley switch saying i think this switch welded in the closed position there's no evidence of that anywhere it's conceded nobody's ever seen this which  occlusion that these kind of tax welded together and then by the way they were regularly on the welded minutes after the accident because the door was working properly after she was taken away in an ambulance there is no evidence this isn't a matter of waiting evidence there is no evidence in the record with proper foundation and his his conclusions his conclusions aren't enough to raise a question of fact and a motion for summary judgment if there's no facts to support the conclusion he's guessing his of it and his opinions have changed throughout the course of this case and he's never done anything but guessed we have glenn radio saying you know these kind of attacks excuse me these scams can come out of calibration over the course of time it doesn't mean that they were installed improperly that they miscalibrated it glenn riddle testified these these cameras can come out of calibration this store  was supposed to have the store in a maintenance schedule mr davis was initially very critical of the firm fleet and that's probably what we're what caused the settlement in this case he said finally to suppose to place these doors on the maintenance when how often they should have them inspected and service to moan mr davis in his testimony said that the maintenance obligation flows as between eighty eight each of you who actually purchases the door from stanley and then sells it farm fleet and farm fleet because a w they are the technicians that perform that service and dr davis testified in this deposition that he was critical of e w and farm fleet for not having that on a regular maintenance what i'm suggesting to the court is we can talk a lot about the alternate reasons of how this accident could have happened but in the end we still have to come back to the fact that there has been no standard set by this expert there's been no test of a i mean that there was a and they're testing confirmed that they had a calibrated correctly they did the same thing in two thousand and one two thousand and six when they replace