found that he was he did not sustain such an injury that he was in gauged in a personal deviation at the time of the accident and the accident arose out of his own misconduct did he accident of the record the recording of the dispatch says can you respond and he says yes without revealing that he's twenty to twenty five miles away and then on top of that as he is responding he contacted by the deputy who's requested the backup and wise to him and tells him he's only three to five minutes away when he's nowheres near would there's no question that he was going to assist in jeopardy when the accident  doesn't end until you returned to essentially the point of departure but more importantly than that when you were there had been in this case clearly he's responding to paul you don't dispute that is that he lied is the worry was you're not disputing he was heading to the scene of the call you look at the personal deviation cases there's a pattern a clear pattern when someone leaves the sphere of employment and there's four factors every one of those cases considers one of those how significant is the deviation you know you look at something like he's passed or you look at something like robinson someone's on their way home they stop to eat a stranded motorist someone in the sky on their way to a subdivision to do other work they pick up their kid to go christmas shopping the deviation is not significant or taxi is just an example it's not a hard and fast rule of geographic geography it's an example of how significant is the deviation in there again the guy was miles and miles away was out may we know were close to where he was supposed to be same situation here you need to spend a lot right but the question then becomes we have to drop the word is that at him when he's heading back to respond with official justice he would be doing if he was in his practice and that's what i'm trying to help you with because what i think the cases reveal is a four part test of when someone's outside the sphere and the four factors that every one of you look at these dozen cases the four factors that these cases always consider are the significance of the deviation how far the number two lesion in the nature of it employers reasonable expectation is this person somewhere where the employer would reasonably expect him to be and that's where the deceit comes into play in this case a significant one because he would not have been dispatched very clear testimony from the dispatcher i would not have sent him if i knew where he was that he was that far away and the fourth factor that they consider in all these cases is was the act involving a person of interest or one related to the employment still that is of the same changes the whole makes here is the reason that he is speeding in this case because this was not an emergency he knew that this was not an emergency there was no code one call he didn't require code one the rules require if you look at page i think it c two eighty five the record with a set of all the rules for emergency response and high speed response you only do that when it's an emergency he knew there was no merge and so he admits that on the record on his direct examination is all this crossed but he knows there's no emergency so there's no reason for be speeding back and see turning off the side but all all for the purpose of serving his own personal interest it's no different look at the case in saunders or look at look at a case like saunders where the guys on the forklift only employers property only does is to pitch a ride on a forklift to get over to get his runge and the court said outside the scope driver because he was doing it out of his own personal interest so everything went with the commission found th accident a rose out of henceforward sharon in his effort to cover up his misconduct that's what the origin of the accident is it's not responding to a call that he knows there's no emergency the origin of the accident is trying to cover up the fact that he's twenty five miles from where he's supposed to be that's why he speeding that's why he's not using his lights that's why he's being so careless that's why he's lying to his coworker that i'm only three to five minutes away what is fifteen minutes away all of these things are calculated to cover up the rule violation that he engaged in not to respond to an emergency that would be within the sphere of his employment and so that is why the commission he's clearly concluding here and this is a very differential standard of review that applies in th acting to cover all these are interests is acting to cover up his misconduct that's why he's speeding back to will county that's an inference that's a factual question i agree but whether that conduct now falls within the statutory standard manifest weight standard there is nothing to indicate here that there's no evidence to support the commission's decision or that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident no i don't think so there's ample evidence to show here as the commission that and by his own admissions that he knew there was no emergency that he lied deliberately to his coworker to hide the fact that he was well away from his post and that he was speeding the whole time from the moment he got it all for that purpose not because of an emergency and that's all very clearly established by the record and as i said when you look at these cases and there's twelve cases that break this down those are the four but that's the four factors all these cases look at you know how far easy how significant is the rule violation what is the group lawyers reasonable expectation i think that is a significant factor in these cases especially in instances where the person travels as part of their job as it is a police officer may because in those instances there is a significant expectation on the part of the employer that the police officer will be where he supposed to be the public safety depends upon it as does the safety of sculler officers so you would expect him to be at his post you would expect him to lie admitted that dispatch presumes you were at your post when they make a call to you he admitted that so he deceives or it and again only reason he's doing this is the only reason he's dispatched is because  has created that false impression that he is where he is supposed to be so the toys reasonable expectations are not that he would be twenty five miles away the rule violations are significant in this case we can use duty post speeding when he prohibited who might be going down in the mine shaft and taking a motor to use when you're prohibited from using it public service guy only goes six hundred fifty feet west of the garage he's supposed to be at and gets nailed by a train coming back with the employers car  serious will violation those cases found outside the sphere of the employment and what was the purpose being served in every one of those cases it's not connected to any interest of the employer has speeding the racing back going to  position is not move aided by an emergency or an interest of this employer it's most of it's occurring because false pretenses and it's occurring because he's racing because he doesn't want anybody to know that he left his post now that's when you look at the virus that every one of these cases you know and i don't mean to repeat it but again it's this is how far all reasonable expectations the employer would violations personal interest served those are the things that every one of these twelve cases that are cited throughout the briefs on personal deviations consider they break evenly almost right down the middle six and six on this so when you see cases like international arts where the guys working late to get the advertising brochure out a normally picks up his wife and he says new poor hey i got to go pick up my wife an employer says go pick up your wife and he doesn't he gets killed on the way back no deviation he wasn't a few miles out of these are huge areas that these guys troll that he was never charged with the rule violation of some sort of balls up he was charged with leaving his post without permission which is a because he's licensed as a care driver in the city chicago now when your peace officer on duty were everywhere you are first of all we have to distinguish the fact that this gentleman happens that the public office case but if you're concerned at all about precedent that what you seem to be saying is look all the police officers out there it doesn't matter where you have gone it doesn't matter what you were doing as war room you are responding to a call from anywhere anyplace doing anything and you have an accident you're covered because you're still the police officer that's just that in the room no that's not what i'm saying what i'm saying i'm saying we'll let's let's look at the legislature did right now a peace reasonable it was an unreasonable extra five minutes or ten this wasn't going to change anything he wasn't in the city chicago he wasn't in the end not in who was within the reasonable expectations of what the situation  deviation cases i am not advocating any hard and fast rules here i don't think big you can adopt a rule that simply because a peace officers and howard to perform his duties at any time he sees a problem that he automatically close with acting in the course in school there is a difference this is the problem with the with with with mr rivers argument is it really begs the question it assumes that whenever you're on duty there cannot be a deviation and that's not right these are separate concepts whether peace officers on duty or off duty is one thing but there's deviating from the scope of employment as a separate question and in the case law that question of deviation and i urge you know i  enter the intersection under high speed with apparently possibly no lights on and is injured that member the public is injured when had everybody known the true facts dispatch said they would have sent someone closer i think that person is just as