because the judge the arbitrator in the commission affirms there are a few factual disputes on the commission of property or the sequence of events for the for the acts that she was ruling largely on a legal issue i agree with current to be a defective or has it this condition what will employers do in the state it's going to created i'm in control of the liability problem for them that's an issue for the legislature that's not an issue for the commission what she did except for my client presentation and the large largely unreported sequence of our thing happened was there was a high differential between the backside of the curve on the ground level within the curb area my client didn't see it and actually the grass height differential has to qualify as a a hazardous for risky you know condition for purpose of workers compensation because as you know we're not doing a common law case where we have to provide duties to minimus standards  car on to the curb or into the median i should say medium yes she goes for with the right foot stepping on the grass which compresses showing up revealing that differential she caught the tip of her for right foot on that curb fell into the be that way over time then you would let me defect absolutely absolutely in this case even better because i have a latent defect because they have graphs obscuring the differential so her cognizance of what's there does become relevant because she didn't case law that i'm aware of that that requires any kind of a specific differentiation in height levels quantities of risk exposures to risky for some of them titled benefits the question is whether or not there's a differential whether or not there's something that's hazardous for that individual at that time on the employer's premises and in this case there's no doubt she didn't anticipate it she tripped over to the question becomes is or a legal bar to someone getting their benefits for this differential which couldn't understood it for the sub we had stepping down off the curb there's a slope area paved right remarkable so that's the way it was designed ok not that that's terribly relevant either but what's different about caterpillar is i went back and read it today because and you would be asking me about that the supreme court noted that there were no findings of fact by the commission as to mechanical causation they didn't term a mechanical causation but they said there were no findings of fact supreme court says as a matter of law you haven't proven up your case what we usually cite the cat for though are the arising out of elements you know the assigned duties incidental duties common law or statutory obligations type duties and additionally though they said they give us what i think you turned in to your expansion of neutral risk in two thousand and fifteen you know the time is there are eight and exposure also is earned exposure beyond what the general public finds if it's not one of those three categories and that was the subject of the discussion up at the supreme court a month ago mcallister they were talking about that specifically because that tells us we got the three assigned you  so neutral risk was should never have been a concern for the judge or the arbitrator the commission in my case nor should unsolvable like a liability problems nor should whether know my client was intelligent it divides areas but it's not a walkway right and so if it's not a walk away and there's a difference in height between the curb and his nom walkway what's hazardous about the property because the w so the differential judges what makes this set up defective and there was nothing saying don't step into the curb there was no guidance against it she was told to park in the parking lot she chose the slot closest to the front door to a logical as a ma a part of the system then it doesn't make any difference how they lay it out i mean the fact is we know that they've got a curve right across from the us that's flush we know they can put more dirt in there some but who cares it's a no fault system yes they could do that but they greatly to understand fish claim that there was a hazard or a direct or something wrong with the curb area they also have witnesses who testified at trial who testified differently than what the petitioner testified to well they did there's still is there a dispute here if there is a de facto is there something the employer did to this area because of the fact and there was a lot of analysis a lot of testimony taking we have this work who actually went to the scene to where she fell and inspected the area and did not find that the differential were there a curvy street level in there is a concrete slope correct that's put there for water purposes or what we were not sure nobody is sure of was there and the nature of the fall person is walking in normally when you see a street and you see a curb you expect to step down to the to the street level instead could not step down the street level but there was an incline concrete incline which created an imbalance situations that the opposing counsel could have brought in to show how that curve slope area is more dangerous than what the general public faces on a day to day basis and he said that there was no evidence or of evidence from opposing counsel to show that that slow  evidence of what all the measurements were or even kind of compare it to any other purpose show how it's more dangerous or not dangerous and without that information there is no hope it's a possibility that a finding there was by the commission there is no defect in the curre defect anywhere that's correct there is no defect in and these indicated they look from the picture from every angle and they also struggled to understand how the grass constituted a defect so at the picture from every angle they obviously see the curve in the grass and based on the picture based on the evidence that they heard from the multiple witnesses they found no defect this argument why are we getting hung up on the defect just follow this proposition for a nd there role was dangerous dangerous to the public or how in some way it was different than any other cop curve that the public faces on a day to day basis but one with that your honor again we we find that the commission again one of the testimony of all the witnesses in this case they again looked at the picture that the curve itself is the picture that fisher took herself this to compress she question why would some of the surprised gresley compress who cares you know the fact is the larger view of that differential that's the has her that's the dangerous condition and that was the prove that was put in that's the proof she employers do deeper buy coverage to the clients or to them to the workers therefore they are legal calls on how far do the extends from protect someone every time the commission makes a ruling on a risk or hazard us that steve backs hazardous conditions are not neutral risk cases and as we talked about with caterpillar there that could be true if your job was to continuously cross a curve every day like an inspector of t and so the only thing she's doing is she's in countering the risk to which we are all exposed to when we cross occur he and they made a finding that she was not exposed to it to a greater degree than the general this person has to cross the sierra to get to their car on a daily basis twice maybe that's not relevant to the analysis either so i think that answers the other point the other thing is that if now we are going to somehow conclude that she is by stepping on to the media that was there for her so she did have her car a little easier if we're now considering other frolick indeed to which dislodge is someone from the benefits that is application of another arbitrary barrier against someone's ability to get premises no sir i think you got the position i think we that's not what i have here i have grass out steering her vision that is what made this a dangerous condition so for example if it was steps like you presented during my initial steps that report normally that i don't know how you could find that to be a compensable risk because they were intended to be that way we're supposed to look out for ourselves with properly poured stops right in this case the ground level was below this it was obscured by grass there's no dispute about that in my case it's a dangerous condition in another curb maybe to grass doesn't go enough to drive struck so so you're saying that now we're ok floodgates in my case i have corrects obscuring views so we can decide this on the lowest common denominator i mean here's what my case was i just want my benefits my client how it applies to other things you can roll twenty three if you don't if you're concerned about