decision that her injury did not arise out of the course of her point just to give you a brief overview of the fact she was employed at st john's hospital as a cook she works part time particularly the employees that are positions at st john's hospital have to park in this parking lot it is mandatory she then has to make her way to the eight employees entrance which is also me henri she has to pass th which requires an employee id she then has to either an employee id or chest to enter her employee number and then she walks through the employee gate and then she has to check in with the spanish and then same basically employee embalmer edo was forced to park on seven series much like the employed here and she was forced to ta alleyway and i agree with you that there were defects in the street that that eventually led to her falling and hurting her ankle and upon her ego the fact of the matter was that the core issue of this case was that she had greater a common risk that is greater than the general public's common risk and that's what differentiates i was born is this this argument and threshold that there needs to be a risk that's greater than that's to the general public the fact that this jimerson had to cross the road whichever pathway she chose she had to get from the employee parking lot to the employee entrance more so you know here again getting back to this question did she have to be where she was you talk about the employee getting i could tell from satellite actually whether or not there was a sidewalk leading street but whether there is there is certainly a pathway from the employee entrance to the to the sidewalk that abuts ninth street whether there is a sidewalk next to that that  which leads to ninth street which then she would cross and directly dumps into the sidewalk that is perpendicular to ninth street on mason street and this is this pathway is something which employees process every single day in fact she was walking with employees at the time there were employees at the parking lot  fact other than the fact that there was not a marked crosswalk which there should have been no your honor the risk that she was exposed to the risk of getting hit by a car did not all that it's only quitting time when when a employee or employer is responsible for a x in a rising it's the regular and continuous use by the employee of those cases specifically talk about there is no way ability because there is no evidence the complainant was using something under the control of the employer ok if you got struck in the employer's parking lot yes here they're saying the injuries occurred at a place that was not under the control of the employer both cases focusing on that issue and that's your problem to overcome how those crossing the street is best to stop and says something that was under the control of the that's that is my argument that she was going from it in a sense it was employer controlled all the way because she wouldn't have been crossing the street but for the fact that she was going to w she would have been yes i agree with your honor has it was not as warm was with she is she would not have crossed in that particular spot but for the fact that she was a mandated by the  employer to park in a employee parking lot and go to an employee and trends so i do understand that she was in a public law or a public street at the time however that she was in her  i mean she was going from one employee area to another if the employer would have allowed her to park anywhere to park in the position lot to park in the for the visitor lauch to go out a different entrance than we wouldn't be  i think it is your honor and i think the distinction that you're pointing out here is really the line that distinguishes our argument versus theirs in the cases that she cites versus cases we say when you look at her line of authorities  brace case that was i believe cited a reply brief every one of those involves an accident or injury on the employer's premises and that requires a completely different analysis than the line of cases of read osbourne hassen warner that w court back to the way we opened our pellet brief we pointed out that the case is governed by the coming and going doctrine that was announced or that was elaborated on in butler and it says one employee is injured at a point off the employer's premises while travelling to and from work the injuries are not and then it provides two exceptions though exceptions are when the employee's president had a place where the action occurs which required performance ridge on which it was not and she faced an increased risk versus that of the general public or second the injuries occurred in a conard a defective condition that was enhanced by the unloading unloading in the basile of the area that the employer created for his own benefit we don't have anything like that here at all you failed bomb read of those because the toys here could have gone in several only reason i would say to mr crump testimony is you knows we didn't because there were some disputes about it we really stayed away from it but the only thing on the on the transcript page one twenty nine chromosome asked about the vehicle he says vehicles are given i d s for where to park but they're not lot specific and that's why we've made references to her being able to park another location that she testified i regularly parked in that particular block yes she did and that's in the record but i think the one thing that i noticed when i was looking into this case against the world argument and it's probably a little different than the are even expressed in my brief because we did discuss the concept of increased risk in the commission did as well but when i really read each one of those cases read  she was required to park in that she was required to use the required to cross the street we should even if she would have crossed at a different process walk there is still an increased risk in that she would be subjecting