its analysis i think could dresses some of the problems you're been forced to deal with as the bar comes before you argument after argument requiring and i think to some extent torturing the notions of when a demonstration of the increased risk is required to slink in a sentence or to work for the metropolitan water district or just go up michigan avenue for those  who know your chicago geography harder her job is to with three times a week she gathers up the petty cash and the small checks and marches them over to the bank one block south one block east on michigan a was there anything about this driveway itself there may have been a contributing factor i know the claimant testified that there was no defect perceive in the curve of the driver what was there any type of sign i think speaks volumes that we're not talking about a straight sidewalk as i'm thinking you're granted there's a dip in this thing that it's a new ship and it goes like this judge and then sold it you can get down to street level so the trucks  and they take the sidewalk for about a length of oh maybe twelve feet eight the sidewalk suddenly goes down like this just like this and there's pictures of it and compounds the respondent wants to push the category this case were to neutral risk and therefore require the petitioner to show bet there's an increased risk to be honest with you i'm not sure if the respondent is saying even when activities are incidental be him to the employment you must also show increased risk or you only want to show increased risk when it's a neutral risk i do maintain as the commission did that we would win under any set of circumstances when you paid the fee action the permissible inferences and apply them to our law number one we win certainly if she simply needs to show that this was in risk incidental to the employment she's traversing something and on one can appeal or were they at me and was not able to show there was any problem whatsoever with her he just stepped down from her we have a sign warning danger type situation that says be careful here because the sidewalks can of someone disappear from underneath you secondarily if indeed we were called upon to show an increased risk the law in a sense provides us with two trump cards number one is the case of institute of technical research because the arbitrator you could tell he was agonizing over turning the case down and in the commission reversed in our favor he said i recognize what the petitioner saying he's saying if the same accident happened on the employer's own loading dock and she tripped into the slow caterpillar to deny the claim and the commission said he was off base the point being if i did need an increased risk your honour's we wouldn't be at looking institute of technical research because we're not comparing her to everyone else that walks along that same sidewalk in tech and institute of tech the research told us would be absurd we compare her to people that walk sidewalks in general and sidewalks will generally don't pay off this kind of or not based on every block with having to keep your head down to make sure the bike wasn't disappearing out from underneath and we just saw this in the mix and obviously you could see you were listening with interest of the earlier case because some of the issues overlap about whether america claimants exposed to a greater risk argument in your other cases the person is merely turning even though it's a part of the job they're turning in the claimant in this case required to take a specific route which you're required to go past is warning simple technical research and then i somewhat tongue in cheek in my grease cited to larson which made the whole point she doesn't have to pay out of greater increase of risk if you think the needs are various than the other people to traverse the sidewalk only the general public and larson centrally says that would be no different than a responding arguing that anybody that goes into the lion's cage has the same amount of risk as the lion tamer will obviously have to because we're not comparing you to going into a singular age which in this instance would be the sidewalk we're talking about sidewalks in general now i mention to trump cards the first one being this institute of technical research clearly need a risk and i don't think i do and i'm hoping a decision from this court will help clarify things for the bar but if i do need one and institute of technical research was not enough standing alone then we have the whole notion of this lady being the street employee and street employee patient do not require the employee to be on the street for a while forty hours it simply says when you send somebody out on the street the risks of the street become the risks of the employment and so will ultimately that would be the final trump card if i can't win this case simply on the activities being incidental to be employment which is my prefer urging to you then i should certainly win under increased risk under the doctrine of institute of tactical research and if somehow you didn't want me in your building on me and certainly the entire street employee doctrine  law as we take these disputed they have and apply them to the law it just seems illogical to me and no more be a logical then if any of you were leaving here today and you'll forgive me but the same some kind of injury on the street the one final point on there is there a certain amount of time that the that the evidence must stablish that the claimant is on the street to fall within the street  but the same case says no these are matters of degree not matters of competitive billing and i think that would be in the holding your honor one of the other cases interesting he says if they hired a a messenger drop in the public way you have to show a greater risk than the public but we're confusing legal and factual notions and we come full circle just as the arbitrator said before deeper grudgingly denied th on the same injury happens at work or it's compensable how can you justify if this is incidental to employment employer sends her out there there's a street risk that it's not compensable let alone why should she have to show she needs to be exposed to the at risk greater than the general public i think if you disagree with me and you believe she does have to show an increased risk  is clearly shown it under a either or of those doctrines enunciated in the case law institute of technical research or city of chicago but i think such a holding is only going to unfold in the respondent borrow more and as i said in my case it's not any different i have a secretary that works all year long once a year at twenty five pound box of stationery comes in and she decides to be a good egg and lift it up surveyor why not then shouldn't  won't all of us the boxes from time to time we're sure increased risk from the secretary we all do some lifting i know that's in a certain absurd example but we are getting to the point in practice before the commission where we're getting played with these notions of increased risk and when we have to show it and what's not a neutral what is a neutral risk in not lasting i mean if you'll recall the pew that i think the respondent is trying to put us in neutral frustrations but when the employer says you out on the street to do when air and you fall in a driveway that signed him warned and you break both wrists i think it's reasonable to expect that there's a connection between that and your employment that warrants the payment of your medical bills and your last time and money for the permanent effects of the but then i'll sit down thank you thank you justices denis noble representing the avalon much home water reclamation district schneider with the employees trying to do in this case is basically change the law if you if you're out on the street and there's no dispute we've never disputed that she was in the course of her but once she's running out aaron she still has the burden of proving that the x in a row is out employment and in this case because she isn't out in the public she has to prove risk greater than the general argument now in his reply brief he says wait a minute the juror the jurisdiction this court is manifest weight all right but that's his position on the manifest where the evidence shows she had no idea what happened cheater stumbled or misstep she lost her the mere fact the claimant does do duties to her to the place excuse me the mere fact the claim its duties took her to the place of injury and that but for employment she would not have been there is not suspicion of itself to support a finding that her injuries ar it's a driveway it's a driveway if you look at the photographs attached from numerous briefs by counsel look at the look at the photograph of the area where she felt she testified it was a six inch well she said the car was six inches high she i don't think she's qualified enough as a mechanical engineer or otherwise to say oh how much that defies all she said as she was walking up the drive she stumbled she marked it with an x where she fell off i don't see how this is an increased risk anywhere near fact that she was is a now the standard which she's arguing well isn't there have to be evidence up above and beyond manifest weight standard for him to when doesn't he have to prove it credible evidence that that was an increased risk not just his opinion inches even she's been sent down on the street by her employer now the question becomes is that sufficient evidence to support the commission's decision if the answer is yes this case gets reversed if the answer to th interesting argument and technically i don't know how to answer that because that's a subjective standard that she applies i mean she walked straight across the street i mean she could have gone on an angle to the south east to the corner of michigan the entrance to the district is behind that to the northwest so she took that angle she could've gone straight across the street and avoided it she could have turned left out of the building and walked down a half a block to michigan across that so i don't know the answer that only she would know ok let me let me let me rephrase it if this was not an unreasonable route for her to but i guess not i mean like my tongue as the crow flies or anything but inherently dangerous as in the i t case they show that it was a high crime area was there any evidence to show that people were following on a step on a regular basis she never encountered any problems before she took that route before she testified she was familiar with the area she'd walk their route before creating beryl simply carved out their driveway and made a level with the street that's not into my opinion by creating a driver for their service vehicles or their delivery vehicles that doesn't create any difference and when you sign talks about the high curb where the allies no testimony was offered by petition to establish anything otherwise it says caution hiker if you look at the photographs that that sign is adjacent to the  this here where there's a drive yes there is ok don't they still have to prove doesn't the claim have the burden of proving that there was an increased risk by showing some type of dangerous condition is this dip that it's been called is it nothing more than a service dr wood pavements not broken depth created an increased risk by just by just being adept whatever going to call this thing but she still has to prove if we're going to say that there is that is not a normal sidewalk in the city of chicago which i beg to differ based on the size of the city that exists all over this place but here's what i think you're missing in the argument and i tend to agree with what you're seeing believe or meant but the point with the commission found was that you're right everybody watching around the city of chicago may encounter gibson occasionally ok the general public does but your employment required her to encounter this did much greater frequency much greater than the general public because he had to go out and make the kind of well known they say partitioner regularly was required traverse the streets in order to make deposits right and was exposed to the risk of the dip in the driver with greater frequency than the members of the general staff i was approved it was around so there's no other evidence that the general public was this was the most direct route the only other logical route would have been to go in the opposite direction first any other route would have been a detour but more importantly run even manner i agree church i agree more important to me is i grant she needs to show a risk i strenuously dispute that the case should be found compensable on the basis that she had because i think that's going to create problems for the bar i think it's a bad application of the facts of this case and the law as a commission from now they found it they found the  risk not the increased risk was associated to employment and therefore rose out all but they then said respondent mr manley memorial we declined to find that she needs to show an increased risk but if we had t so find she did because of the tennis of the cases i cited to you and i want this court to reverse respectfully speaking and find that her being sent out on the street and encountering this employee because i don't think it's required and i'm fearful that if the holding goes in that direction we're going to wind up with pardon me with more cases that are all talking about you must show an increased risk for these activities even though they're incidental to your employment and we're going to wind up with my secretary here some date because someone says well we all the boxes what's your increased risk i mean we all prefer streets but as we said in that research case it's different anyone can traverse any street within the city boundaries of chicago with the way you want to go on the things he's not on the ferry he's just walking down the hall and if in the hallway as in some of the older buildings we try to catch two together there's a deal if she was walking down the sanitarium or this places call and she there was a dip in the hallway and she stumbled forwards it was all i would maintain she doesn't need to show and increase the risk to the general public and it would almost seem absurd because the general public's not in the building that's why i say it's really a red herring that she's out on the street when she gets this accident in some respects because  that get shot on the south side here the defense was well it's a dangerous neighborhood anyone could be shot by a stray bullet and the court said that's not the test we're not testing this man these of the other people in the neighborhood that's the lion cage argument we're testing this against the public at large and he's in an area that's more dangerous so he's established his increased risk even though everyone else in that neighborhood is exposed to the same risk is he just like anyone in the white or city so it's not you're not comparing her against the other people to traverse this did you're comparing her against the public at large and may be where you live your