at the time of trial your honor defendant basically stipulated that she was negligent in causing the accident to occur so the jury was given the proximate cause instruction and i think the key issue in this case so i'd like to talk to you about the facts of the case and how i think that the case that needs to be implied here which i talked about extensively in my brief is the wiggins case which is very recent case that this this  worked i think since ninth grade he was taken out of school by his dad so he testified had done fine for the accident but as time went on he wasn't getting better he went to a chiropractor thirty three days after the accident first know from what he sees my client he says my client reports prior he did this right and dr fisher testified at trial yeah i talked to about it and that was from his back like i love that i knew that and there was some the impact and the speed of the impact that was significant about that i think is that there's no medical testimony that hinges on that fact and i think that that's another reason why the jury's decision was improper in this were some minor discrepancies i would say your honor what the defendant testified to was that she claims her brakes malfunction which was the reason why she thinks she used the word rolled forward and struck the rear of my client's vehicle and then testified to the speed of the accident my client said i don't think she's she's right about the speed of the accident and there were some other minor discrepancies about her claiming that my client was pulled off the side of the roads looking a cigarette and my client says he never smoked before so other minors pregnancies that the jury heard yes with regard to how you answer that occurred but i don't think that's significant in this case i think what significant is the testimony that that's remained consistent for the plaintiff throughout the entire trial which was that she had him he developed problems after the accident happened he never had prior problems that were similar she was very active she was an athlete and she actually waited think the record indicated eighty seven days before she sought medical care and treatment there was no evidence in that case that the that the plaintiff w verdict form seat binding in favor of the defendant and against my client and the problem with that thing you said in that opinion is that when the jury signed the general verdict form for the defense we have no idea why the jury made that decision that basically gives us no indication why that verdict was rendered and in that case because of that you said because the record before us is clear that defendant's negligence was my client because the negligence had been admitted and there was no contrary evidence submitted by the defense that this accident did not cause my client's injuries which put the twelve to say the time he denied see what was his reasoning churchwoman it was stated that at the current time he was going to deny our motion but based on what the jury found he may revisit that issue that's basically appropriate thing for them to do because if they if they found that my client didn't sustain any injuries as a result of the accident or they didn't necessarily believe him that he was hurt they could put zeros on those different spots that would that would give us a reason as to why they made their decision that that wasn't done and that was the problem i think one of the issues that you saw on the weekends case is that when there's a general verdict form we just simply don't know and in that case you also set about jury instructions and instruction is only justified this if it is supported by self evidence in the record there was no evidence in the record that was submitted that should give the jury the option to find of actor who took the time that her injuries were consistent with the type of accident she described and that her delay in treatment was not unusual given her tender years of her belief the symptoms with this here defendant offered no medical evidence to the contrary given the evidence i instant case must be reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of my ability to hold a new trial on the issue of plaintiff's damages on so i think that that case i think that concisely and appropriately applies to this case because it could've been that they didn't believe my mind or that they didn't believe dr fisher or they didn't believe or not but we don't know that because the defense was allowed to submit this general verdict form that just simply says we find in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and offering no other mines or any other awards of damages so i truly think that th applies to mr clara's case and he should at least be given a new trial on the issue of damages and by the way i asked dr fisher on the issue of food the way of my clients here in treatment i asked him on the stand i said is that something that you see in your practice people you know waiting to come to see you after they get hurt in some way in an accident or be in some other area he said absolutely he said i wish i had a dollar for every time that that happen so he had conflicting testimony that he presented to the jury he had conflicting testimony if the playing of the defendant's testimony is to believe combined circumstantial evidence that the accident did not occur in which he sta thought about evidence that was put on the ground with that is we just simply don't know and in the weirdest case you said well we don't know in that case the plaintiff gets a new trial an issue of damages when that