court counsel my name is john wall and i represent rose stoffel who is the widow of the deceit in joe horn and i would assert your honor is that the manifest weight standard is the standard that applies this case there were undisputed fa but there are certainly inferences that were drawn from those facts your honor just posed a scenario would this be a compensable plane in the event that it was a minority shareholder who was being picked up it was in this case carry out his request which was to make arrangements for the company point she to fly to cable union wisconsin to pick up the minority shareholders broussard and his wife nineteen and then take them that the trip business really the purpose of the trip by craig hart's own testimony and steve want to make or who was the c e o at the time we tried the case testified that any trips that the plane  had an underlying legitimate business purpose and that would be what were the families pay for you know it was to provide travel for the majority shareholder and also to allow their c e o the opportunity to communicate with shareholders when he was traveling to act as a pilot in making travel arrangements for the torpor ation and clearly the majority opinion at the industrial commission found there was this long standing policy a fairly general prices that all of their flights for that plane were legitimate business flights all of the expenses the tie down fees the gasoline everything paid through the corporation for this point including when there were personal flights mayme and we have joe warner who responded all of his day to requests of the majority shareholder request of the other director and the majority shareholder craig hart testified certainly it was within joe's purview to make a decision whether he flew the plane and brought a safety pilot with him or whether he contracted with image air a local facility in plumbing tend to pilot the plane that was certainly within joe's discretion to make those decisions and counsel indicates you know there's an issue about whether he was required to fly it clearly was his free choice but as the commission found based on the reasonable inferences that they drew from the affidavits it was certainly within the purview of joe warner as the only pilot of heritage to make the decision to follow the request of his boss and pilot the plane regardless of the destination and in fact the commission specifically found in their opinion that the underlying purpose of the trip was not significant the cause heritage the respondent in this case treated every single flight that was made by that aircraft as a business flight  to maker the new c e o well testified that any time that the shareholders needed to be transferred from one location to another it was always joe who flew them or joe arranged for the pilot and in that instance the commission took all that information to try would assert to you want your honour's was factual information and they drew the inference as to that the dual capacity on and that the traveling employee exception applied because certainly if joe warner was going to fulfill the request for a credit card is poss then he would be required to leave bloomington normal which was the principal location of the comp i would suggest that the traveling employee exception does require that the employee travel away but it's a necessity requirement as opposed to i'm sure that i have to do it or all terminated in this instance joe warner was the only employee who was a pilot and he also was the only employee in charge of managing the flight facility for heritage enterprises there was also factual testimony offered through the testimony of craig hart and steve wanamaker that joe warner utilize this plane all the time in their ordinary thirty five facilities throughout the state of illinois and aviation travel was a material part of their business and craig clarke testified when he was the chairman of the board that they expended the funds from a business this flight would not have occurred but for the fact that the chairman of the board asked mr warner to go and pick up a minority shareholder that in of itself i would assert your honor supports the findings industrial commission in the application of this passage clearly the arbitrator found here that mr warner was hearing now worker function as opposed to this corporate officer functions and i don't think there's any question of law that bad doctor and what's misapplied and i would further assert with regard to the traveling employee exception i don't think that there's any issue that that particular law was correctly applied to the facts so i would go back to that i do believe that the appropriate standard of review in this instance is manifest weight there clearly is evidence in the arbitration record and that commission even more specifically  findings of the arbitrator and specifically found long before this accident occurred responded heritage had embraced a practice that any of their flights had a legitimate business purpose certainly the dissenting commissioner she might have felt that maybe from an eye her asking him point or from a write off standpoint it wasn't a legitimate business interest but that testimony of the admission that we have out of the mouth of the chairman of the board is that we treated every flight that joe made as having a legitimate business purpose and on that basis i believe the decision of an arbitrator the decision of a commission to the  and is therefore its business they say the same time he enjoyed flying he loved the myth that some of the trips were person but now we're hearing is the company and that's what they've said every time this airplane is used for anything we pay for we consider it isn't so and yes the i arrest clearly would have said absolutely not this is no more than if i want to write off my vacations and i run it through my practice not even have their family everything we pay for their family so this is not going to fly unintended with the government if an employee deadhead it will warm within the business well we like to  you're going to find the company said every time the airplane is used no matter what its business but at the same time they say well yes it can be used for personal use what's personal use there isn't that according to the same definition