well stated in both briefs the facts are not in dispute in this case it's not the plaintiffs in this case was a foreman for burger excavating that he was given a tool truck by his employer to drive to and from work that the work sites that he had to go to these job sites were away from his employer's premises that during and throughout the day he supervise crew and was responsible for providing supplies and materials for that cruise complete their jobs again allowing the plaintive to travel away from those job sites to get supplies and materials that were necessary  there and in larson his address is very thoroughly thoroughly and the standard is while other this deviation as you call it was reasonable and forseeable that's the standard that we have to look at under the travelling  d there's a myriad of cases out there that that state that a slight deviation doesn't matter under the travel ban it's ok because it's expected that things like this would happen now it's important to note that when the plaintiff was going home on his way home he did stop at this bank but this bank was three hundred fifty feet off of route while route twelve he being his direct route home three hundred fifty feet to go into a bank parking lot to withdraw money whether it be for his own purpose whether it be for his employer's purpose whether it be for both purposes doesn't matter is it for sale this individual on his way home would stop at a bank be on his way home when the accident occurred is there any evidence that he was not out on the road he would normally i don't believe so and in reading counsel's reply brief in this case i think it was a little bit misleading because there was testimony and that's in the transcripts from the plaintiff that he was after turning back out of the bank parking lot that he was in the intersection had made it back out to route twelve i think that was over in the again to the traveling employee law i would say no there is no problem with that because there have been cases and and circumstances where an individual's completely off their route but as long as the stuff that was made is reasonable hours now i think this that i think we have to look at what are the contact again is reasonable in forseeable had he gone you know forty miles away to go visit or fran before going home that may be a different situation because that's not a reasonable size the standard is reasonable in forseeable it doesn't matter what the purpose of him going to the bank was whether it was a purpose of both retrieving money for himself for personal use or rather it was just retrieving i money to buy a cooler was or you know keep in mind it was a very h time of the year it was so hot that the defendant in this case had provided electrolyte drinks for the crews to have but as he was working during the day with the crews he was nowhere to hide these drinks so he did want to retrieve money from the clear that there had been a prior instance where it here another individual working for the company had done just that and the truck that they had been and with the company's name on it was found parked at a bar and he was disciplined and reprimanded for that it's interesting that this that never happened in the situation the the plaintiff was never brought remanded by the employer for for going to the bank here there was never any disciplinary action and you know all we had were glowing reviews and going back to the credibility issue that was going reviews as to his trustworthiness and his honesty vidual who was credibility was for the commission decided his story that he was going to the bank to buy stuff from home so they didn't believe  read an ad and i agree with you but i mean you know case are you going to answer the crux of the case the way i see it is that jeffrey cox was not traveling ploy what he was is he is a construction foreman who drives a work truck from his residence to the job site that at the end of the work day from the job site back up mr cox was not paid for travel there is no indication within the record that mr cox was asked to travel twenty unfamiliar locations or outside of martini he travels from the residence to the job site and so under that definition is that he wanted was traveling away from his employer's premises to perform his job isn't that what he's doing yes i'm not saying that he wasn't overarching playing this overarching from card you're saying who cares about whether it's a deviation let's not get hung up the guy couldn't do anything he's not a traveling employee in the first place everybody gets nothing absolutely and it's not that's not only my argument that was the specific the standard for a traveling employee is this reasonable and perceivable standard the correct standard which should be applied in which was applied by the arbitrator after he discounted them as the coxes treblinka ploy is issue of we now as if there's a case back or be industrial commission that states when the employer provides means of transportation to and from work to the employee the standard it is or that expands the in the course of an arising out of element however that leads into the standard that i just stated the case is going to state that is the case unless they deviate from that route if they do they are not then at the end of the day from work and they want to go to the bank do they have to go home first hump the car and then driving ten miles back to the bank for fear of being charged with a deviation is that what you're suggesting people should do point out that the course is in the course of not in the process of returning to the course of or almost in the course of because those are his exact words yeah so let's say ok so he's making the move after it gets clipped by itself bound danger and that's i think you are going for another case the whole reason for substandard it doesn't apply in this case i think that's a dangerous precedent i do want to address really quickly his argument that he stopped at a bank to withdraw money for a cooler  very very briefly and this again is not an individual who was given a card to go from home to an office environment this was an individual who went from home to the office to the job site to various suppliers back to to the office in the back com so this is a traveling employee and that's the standard that we must look at when deciding this case and that's the reasonable and first the ability standard and individual who left work at the end of the day sat by a bank that was three hundred fifty feet off of this route home to go back home so i think clearly we're dealing with a traveling employee here and i read them the standard the reasonable and