issues with you him and that you know from my prior experience also like quoting the law that you make back to you we're going to do that a little bit today knowing that though it is pleasant especially when you're right in the head of this case you are this is a ball case and in my other job as professor of s o u law teaching workers compensation you always come to the false action and there always fall cases that seem to make their way to this bench well here's another here's another so this is a nurse who clocks out of whiskey and yard down a hallway at a very small world southern oil spill for real hospital she's worked there for five years in her testimony is for the majority of time she worked there what she did on the night of the accident was what she did every day there were multiple entrances and exits to this ho entrance and exit from any of the exits in the hospital and guess maybe in fact he was back in folded directed by the employer sometimes happens she might she could have gone out the front door could have got the side door thank you that's absolutely correct the parking is  a premium at the federal hospital as you can imagine we have this giant record on a fall case because there are maps and pictures on those maps were drawn on a trial with multiple markers and we put on a very lengthy trial the trend shelves what is not in dispute is that the exit she left from was the closest way to get out of the hospital has a front exit that looks like a hospital from exit it's like entrance and there are big doors that slide inside of there are people who sit in and take your insurance that's what it looks like not where this happened if you look at these pictures and if you didn't know for a hospital you wouldn't even know this was and let me explain that yes please i'm intrigued by my question we are going with this good on there's a light above it first of all sort of ember twenty six it's eight o'clock at night in seventh southern illinois there whether it were to the sir she gave a recorded statement to an insurance represent this is page where my brief and started page six six six of the record this came up at trial she was cross examined on a statement she provided near to the time of the accident to the representative of the respondent insurance carrier this is what she testified to work testified and gave her records she said there was usually a light on above she stated it was raining this time of the fall and she said quote it was slick and they just recovered it the stairs there's like four stairs that specifically regarding the fall she stated so i had a hold of both rails cause i thought i would get a hold of both rails by didn't even make it down the first step whether in on the ball i don't know what happened i just slid off the step or whatever and i held onto the rail with my right hand i never turned it loose so nothing really hits on my foot now after that she's continuing to be pressed by the insurance representative on the phone and gets asked the same question she says well quote they were just re carpeted so you know they weren't really wet they were just it was like a light drizzle now which she explained is a trial under cross examination she said she couldn't recall which she said the representative what does this have to do anything or receptive at all with a lightning condition we can't take she just will notice you seem to be suggesting the fact that they have this conjunction with the second half but she never said anything from what you just read mary had nothing to do with the like she never even mentioned the lighting and all that alec we thank you you're far too ellen she testified she said she she never testified at the hearing that it was due to improper lending so that's for wrestling with why is this lighting a factor here if well i think the lighting tells the story in conjunction with the stairs the stairs were carpeted the testimony have to concede by the claimant that she fell because it was dark in the lighting and something to do with the fall you'd have to concede she never testified to that she only testify that it was dark yes justice it was slippery and it was slippery and so the first analysis is hazard like this court said in two thousand and seventeen that's not an arbitrator lindsay head arbitrary lindsay didn't take it in that process she of follow all of her decision through greater risk and we all know from your decision in two thousand seventeen that if the hazard isn't found then we go into this risk analysis which we've done a lot with it's personal neutral or it has would be neutral risk right correct so neutral risk can make a case  that neutral risk is faced by an employee on a more frequent basis then the general public that spoke some of the how did it happen here because that's the only testimony in the record remember this is the back door and the  disagree with the characterization of how the arbitrator viewed by clive has them and that also just as hoffman falls into your question about what my client said was wrong with the steps the steps are not defective in a way that sometimes we see stuff like how precepts that are have a chunk out of them we've seen those cases where people fall up and down those what's defective is that they were carpeted and slick on the night of the accident was their sometimes yes sometimes they have to do it every time they walk up on it when it rains the snow not necessarily a feral hospital if they were to use the different entrance other than this one she mused he had three each she chose not the she could have chosen a number of different exits the reason she chose this exit just as hoffman was that there are a number of these clock out stations around the hospital that make sense this one was closest to this back door why did she use this when two reasons she knew that's where the the cock out lies and a lot of the employees like the clock out there because there was a lot just across the street from the back of a hospital so dishy derives a benefit just this often from going out that door absolutely she derived a benefit but there's also a benefit to the employer what specifically is the shutter you're other than this was convenient for her and we understand that by physically with a lot of well how do we get beyond that eric she testified herself that she had done this for a number of both another witness testified that she walked and parked there a number of years in fact really bruce the h r person for that responded the person they call said her office was in the front she didn't really know what went on understand the difficulty with the argument but there is nothing in the record you can't find anything in the record suggest that the general public had even close to the traverse myth or or any idea to come in and out as they were this was versing sneers and not necessarily these stairs i had three witnesses justice hoffman my client terry depose and own along with my cross examination of groups that all leave this court to the time of her accident was the risk of walking on wet pavement in the rain on property owned and controlled by her lawyer the question presented in that case then is whether the injury caused by exposure to that risk standing alone that's one of the act and this court said that it was not that scene analysis should lead to the conclusion that the commission's decision in this case is not against the manifest weight of the evidence petitioner's attorney pointed to two potential defects and i'll just say one thing about the the biting is slippery and i would say there's a little bit of a dispute whether it was actually slippery if you if you look at her record in statements she she says at one point that this that the steps weren't slippery but even assuming that they work there's no dispute that it was due to respondent she did not respond did not wire her to exit through the door that she used there was i believe a door closer to where she walked out the testimony that she gave was the door that she used was closer to where she  voluntarily voluntarily chose that door she voluntarily chose to use the block that she parked in the park anywhere around the hospital his counsel said small rural hospital she could use any of the doors identified at least nine doors herself that she could have the way this came up again in the commission's decision was the arbitrator identified even assuming you were going back to the darkness now you're assuming that there that it was dark the petitioner ballance airily chose to use those steps despite the fact she may or may not have been able to to focus again on my client's testimony with the good questions from as always from the bench today if you look at the transcript and i'll read it but if you look at the transcript starting on page ninety three this is the conversation  myself and my client under oath about the lights how many lights are twice and how many lights are there on the building there were two to answer yes there were two out it was really really dark i said ok she said you had to watch where you went or you would fall was electricity out no you don't know whether that street light again referenced by counsel on the corner was on or off there were no lights when i went out the question the question becomes i guess with the questions of the bench which i understand is that this case is either compensable or not because my client said it was dark she slipped off the top step but she didn't then say and i know the reason i slipped was it was dark seems to me to be the delineating line from some of the questions between compounds ability or not will be boiled the question of whether the reason why she fell was because it was dark and no one asked you the question she said she didn't know the i hazard in the employment or in the condition of point i misses you she doesn't know why she found all she could do and i agree just so of all she could do though was tell the story of what happened and that's what she could tell honestly on the stand she didn't she said on the stand it was dark multiple times she said there was a light out multiple times it was november twenty sixth and southern illinois at eight o'clock and i had been rain again i don't think there's much of an issue whether or not the steps were slick when she gave the recorded statement her testimony at trial was consistent with that she wasn't trying to do anything other than say what happened and all she could say what happened  just said you know that she said she does top staff but that's not the case she said she slept on the top step very different in terms of the mechanism of injury here and now if it's dark street lights out and she testified that  trying to quote her recorded state of thank you again again this is a it's a case for a nurse who's on and that's not an issue for the court today but as my record states in her testimony today she never worked and this is her only avenue of recovery she can sue the hospital because of the bargain struck work so when i ask you to consider that in consider the record on again thank you very much thank you counsel both we rode with this matter of