i've been doing this twenty one years twenty three years i've handled every vaccine are i think going to work is compact i have imagined i can't understand why the petition in this case for the survivors in this case single debtor the record tells us every single day he would leave that melrose park location in a vehicle owned by the respondent testing a vehicle he would drive it out to the western suburbs and he would continue working up until ten to twelve o'clock at night every single day there was no contradictory evidence you couldn't really commissioners sure going and going you're correct i couldn't i couldn't and i couldn't family near him he was on and i did you know erin to do something for himself or for his family let's assume that he's on the clock or somebody subject to all does that mean that if you're subject to call twenty four seven and you're off to something purely personal of her i that everything is automatically compensable you know what activity you're doing of course not in this case it would be the right one what was he doing that was connected to the business when he was getting the campus you know he was he was as you know someone who was in constant contact well the record tells us he was in constant contact with his coworkers with the supervisors with the project he was in charge of out in colorado he had his pager he had a cell phone with him at all or at times always at home i mean i'm wasn't testing out a vehicle at the time the actor who runs it goes and you learn is doing something that everybody does they were near in for coffee except in this case the unique set of the circumstances that the vehicle that he used for that trip was chosen to allow him to arouse in self so that he could wake up to continue performing the work for the company you know working all night up until that trip he was exhausted released he was fatigued he was messing with his actually took that trip not only on a motorcycle it's a lot when you go through his hair and you know that that's the way that he roused himself based on what he did when he would take the vehicles for testing you know west even further west he would have the windows down you had the yard and one of the destinations of the trip was also the obtained cappuccino caffeine there was no longer getting some groceries for a family and sure sure right absolutely so even if we consider that a deviation or leaving a slight deviation he had already had the conversation with the co worker because no one from the house call found he had a conversation with a coworker as had been doing all evening while he was in the store at that time he changes planned to decided i gotta get back to the house to finish my where all of that evidence evidence is uncontested so a call from a coworker you know presumably on the projects he's working for or not to write to him to get back to his work he was in well it's back to where he is computer was running and waiting for him and his papers are spread out on the does all he was doing was trying to get himself going so that he could finish up the work that he had to do for the company that night so he in the event that he's off on a school  on a school project a result of visiting with family or with friends or something else where the drinking or having fun or socializing i agree i don't think there's any way i could possibly make that those terms and if he hadn't got to camp you know you would lose the case right war if he hadn't taken the van and he had the windows up so he wasn't having help look for wind blowing through his head to wake him signed up the whole trip or the whole thing was designed to one come off yes he stopped to get some additional stuff for the kids while he was out which is right next to w i have a traditional workplace setting where i'm in a specific location for my work i don't think the traveling employee analysis would apply to me in that case i don't think i'd had enjoys as broad of protection under the act as someone like this guy especially in the traveling employee mills is it really should be given to bid to the survivors of this case and i was thinking if we have a traveling employee who is out on a sightseeing event you know in the course of their operation the act is interpreted to apply to protect a guy walking on the lava field in hawaii for example you know that's recreation that's a personal recreational activity in this case the guy's not going out for a pleasure drive you know he's not going yard for a sightseeing trip and the air the trip itself there is a nexus between the interests of the employer the business of the employer and this guy's trip or his operation the accident so that would be the difference in this case i think looking at it from a traditional workplace analysis where we have a set location where the guy's putting in hours and once he leaves the building confines you know he's no wonder you know covered under the act arguably you know except in a certain limited circumstance that wouldn't apply in this case i couldn't win if that was his actual employment status but once he left nor was part he was in the wrong a traditional worker in a traditional workplace he became a traveling employee and i think what's important in this case are two different facts responded to turning during the wasn't to peel the commission concluded that the home was not designated as an official workplace so if the home was not designated as an alternative official work place the guy had to be a traveling writers is that everything this guy did for the company was for the company as entire family balance to the interest of the company in this case he wasn't on a pleasure trip he was trying to wake himself up some continuous work if you look at it from a traveling employee how to take care of people who were left in a spot like this following next it like this is tragic you're right but i mean if we address it under troubling employed i think office was located in the world's karkala eleanore on the gate is that he actually went to his office he worked an entire day got up in the morning went to his office came home had dinner with his family and admittedly after after dinner worked on his computer for a assumes that he's some type of traveling employee i mean there is no question that he had a designated work site and now rose parkour knowing where he went to and came home from work he was at it so the only way that we can get to that late at night was neither reasonable nor forseeable this was a pleasure to rob i certainly think it was a drive to get snatch to use any personal drive for personal erin for his family i mean there is no question that the predominant forseeable for mrs hoffman who was designated as a traveling employee who went to the store to purchase a picnic table for her for a personal lease now there was question as to whether or not any cable was for work but the court said that was certainly they have copied a copy of work but is it reasonable in forseeable that he's going to get on his personal motorcycle at nine o'clock in the evening with his wife to drive all the way to the jeweler to pick up the coffee and then when i said that he never even purchases the coffee assuming so again then that analysis assumes that he's already in aid a travelling employee analysis and i would say to you that the weakening back one is not a reason or foreseeable for the to the employer that he's somehow going to wake up himself up by getting on a motorcycle at nine case which is lynch and that the circumstance the claim it was a security guard who was given permission by his employer to go get coffee on the company premises when he locked the company into the record because it was objected to and then that the caption was hearsay i do believe a lot of this information was in fact objected to and was sustained on hearsay grounds now there is there is some evidence of it here in the then further even assuming that that his home became a secondary work site using the traditional now assists of arising out of being in the course of he doesn't mean either promise of of those analysis there was no rising out of components and there was  personal comfort of his family members which is really what they were doing when they went to the jewel about stampedes unless you have any other questions for me i would respectfully submit that you affirm that decision and the commission as it's not being against if you look at the work or do the i did you see see did draw the conclusion that it wasn't reasonable or were foreseeable or whatever they drew right there's no evidence in the worker at all about what was foreseeable or what was reasonable prove what was reasonable or what was foreseeable to the employer i have to assume that the commission's going to draw conclusions against me in the absence of any evidence to support that conclusion now we have a reason to listen for see speed limit he has a helmet on he's obeying the rules of the road he's not engaged in any illegal activity he's doing everything legal there business law against it well probably there's no evidence in the record that the employer prohibited any of this stuff they had no rules on it badly described to do was do his work keep tabs to the company that's what he was doing that's why the traveling employee analysis i think is the most appropriate analysis for this case so the motorcycle you know the extra accoutrements the wife in the bag the late night never think i think those are kind of nonissues really i'm looking at her and looking at cat theme whether he got the caffeine or not i think is a red herring because if you have the destination success and getting to the