notice this is for the attorneys present we are missing one justice justice john burris he has a conflict and will not be able to be remotely present if that's the proper term for this oral argument but he will be fully participate in member of this court on your as he has of course the benefits of the briefs that your file and you will also have the benefit of the manifest weight of this evidence of the evidence supports a finding that miss purcell was a traveling employee at the time of her injury and a finding that her injuring act was reasonable and foreseeable to the employer the commission clearly erred by failing to find that ms purcell list was not a traveling employee at the time of her injury under illinois law a traveling employee is simply one whose work requires her to travel away from the office in this case the undisputed facts showed that ms purcell's job required her to travel away from her office on a regular basis to perform a variety of duties even though the commission concluded that ms purcell was the two aren't mutually exclusive she can do i mean there is a little dispute as to how often but i believe mr hugh did admit that she did have a task that took her outside of the office she also admitted that she didn't direct when and where she miss purcell went and every minute of her day was purcell the fact that she had to leave her office qualifies her as a traveling employee there's no limit in the law to how many minutes you have to be away from your office but the fact that she had to travel away from her office is what qualifies her now are you all in on the traveling employee doctor and you have an alternative series of various the street rest actor  slightly different than the travelling employed actor in far as i can tell the street wrist actor and indicates that when your employment requires you to travel the streets that the risk of travelling t streets becomes a risk of your employment and in this case clearly ms purcell had a job requirement that required her to travel the streets at the time of her entry again i don't think it matters that she wasn't paid to drop off her time card what matters is that this was a requirement in order for her to get paid which is obviously an essential part of being employed especially when you're an extra help hourly employee i it's very important that employee of voluntarily exposing himself or herself when necessary personal danger and he she wasn't required to have this now she was not required to have over the fence however as we know there is no defense of comparative negligence under worker compensation law nor nor should there would should there be when we're dealing with a relieved whole statute circles is to insure a injured workers you know cost of medical expenses well i think the law defines a street rest as any hazard or source of danger encountered on the street there's no requirement that it be you know unable to be back to or are something that's not easily sure that in the naik a step he was required to traverse that specific curve and i don't remember that fact being present in the case in that case or very well could have been a way to get around in an even curve and probably a couple feet down from where he said he wound up tripping but i don't think the onus is on the employee to avoid danger unless it's you know if it's something that would be considered this fence i look at these pictures and the fence and even the respondents breve says that the fence appears to be two feet high it's certainly less than knee high on most individuals we're not talking about a high chain link fence we're not talking about something she had the scale we're talking about a single strand that's directly in front of the entrance to a building clearly that you look at this picture there's no way that this fence was intended to prevent pedestrians from crossing at it was to me and this campus you see it all the time it's to prevent motor vehicles from crossing it also how do you distinguish this case from datsun case in which we held up the claims and the claimant chose to cross slippery slope of grass on her way exit in the employment she was going to her car in this case you can't say as the court said and dad said that the act of making erred that the injuring act was entirely separate from her climb and ms it makes a difference that miss purcell was on her way to drop off her time card and that she took the most direct route from where she was dropped off by the bus  directly west across to the sidewalk and you hear the commission applied dots and it did and i don't think it was appropriate for it to do so because it is distinguishable that it is purcell's injury did occur while she was in the act of doing something that was part of her employment you can't so you're saying that if somebody is acting within their employment whether they're coming or going they can take an unnecessary risk and will be compensable because they are in the act of her employment well again i don't find that this to be an unnecessary risk i think it's an unfortunate accident just like any other street risk is tripping over a curb that was hazardous is also something that you know the employed in that did not necessarily have to encounter but it happened was counsel was taking a shortcut in the case we're talking about dogs and ever was in the girls taking a shortcut or going down a grassy slope when there is a clear stairway very close by but the grassy slope is a more direct route is that hazaras condition to do that or not take the glare sta i'm sure it was a hazardous condition but she also apted to do that when it was of no benefit for the employer to do so there was no argument that she was doing and anything in furtherance for the employer when she did it for it with the evidence that it's not the policy folks do this during the workday that there's posed to be done before lunchtime or after work and the fact that that's i don't think i think the requirement is there whether or not she gets paid to do it whether she gets paid to do it is goes to whether or not she was in the course of her employment in the commission has found that because she was on the premises within a reasonable period of time of the start of her work day she was in the course of her employment there are some other cases that came up during our commission arguments concert when course of employment was in dispute where it was found by the buyer supreme court that  a worker who was injured while just checking their schedule out or picking up their paycheck was found to be in the course of employment even though they weren't on the schedule this is very similar to that  scenario i think we've covered most of the basis for my argument as i said i guess to go back to traveling employee if the court were to determine that she was a traveling employer if the commission had determined that she was a traveling employee then they would have applied the rules that apply to traveling employees and considered whether or not it would be reasonable and forseeable for the employer to whether be reasonable in forseeable for the employee to cross that barrier again the pictures i don't find anything on a recent poll about stepping over or she said happening and i don't think it matters this is a low barrier and she is just getting off a bus and going directly to where i guess i want to stress that illinois law clearly establishes that an employee's own negligence doesn't disqualify them from recovery when the injuring event is incidental to their employment and in this case i just can't see how the act of dropping off your time carried is not incidental to this purcell's and women if the commission had applied this law the commission would not be asked that if the commission had found that the act of dropping off or time card was incidental to her meant i don't think it matters whether or not crossing the chain was unsafe i'm necessary or even negligent  the important thing to consider again is the relationship between the activity and the employment it's for this reason that i asked the can the court to reverse the commission on the decision  apparent we understand all those standards just tell us why she wasn't a travelling employee or why there is no street press and your honor we actually have three arguments in that regard the st i petitioner was not a traveling employee at the time or actually she claims that she was traveling employee because she had to walk across campus to deliver time card to a personal services building is inconsistent with the law more importantly it ignores the fact that she was on the university's premises the entire time under the commonwealth edison case the travelling employee is ones were required to travel away from the employer's premises again in this instance the petitioner never left the university's premises never left the campus in this case we have the university is comprised of many buildings it's over a large period of land a lot of land but ultimately it is one premises  sidewalk cases both of those instances the petitioner was injured while traversing a sidewalk and was in fact found to be a traveling employee heat in both of those instances the petitioner had actually left the premises of the employer before he or she was injured petition also cited some cases in a reply brief suggesting that there's no need for travel between cities to establish that one is a traveling employee once again we agree the primary the primary issue here is that a traveling employee is one who leaves the employer's premises and that's not what occurred in this instance the petitioner is attempting to very narrowly define what is the employer's premises as just the area where the petitioner primary work i merely worked under that rationale or to leave my office to walk down the hallway to get to the printer i would be traveling employee perhaps more like oblique if you have any employer in the entire state of illinois with more than one building on the premises all of the employees who operate when those buildings would then be considered traveling employees perhaps more plausible to the university's case imagine that you have two professors one who leaves to go home for the day one is going to drop off a book and  neighboring building the one that leaves to go home for the day is it on his own her disk in there is not a charging employee if the employee who goes to another building to drop off a book is considered a traveling employee that employee would be at risk criteria i would suggest that she meant neither obviously if you follow the testimony of clear to the petitioner supervisor she explained that the petitioner didn't travel very much in fact when she did it was always on campus and only enter fact remains that even if that one task is necessary it's not a necessary function of her job and further she was still on the university's campus and so if we get to turn to the manifest weight standard as the evidence in this case support the the campus and she has told her she must deliver her time sheet to personnel so you're saying she's in the course of her that was the finding of the commission and we're not challenging that it's our position that her actions were neither rest reasonable nor foreseeable and so we talked to quite a bit and already in this case about the fact that the kitchener chose to encounter this fence that she happy she didn't a couple of feet to the left where she could have encountered gotten on the sidewalk without having to do with the fence whatsoever there was a crosswalk that was a few more feet left the reality is she had any number of options to get to the sidewalk without having to encounter this fence whatsoever and she chose not to use the op and in fact she admitted at trial that had she taken the do two or a couple the two were left it would have cost her no more than a couple of seconds in the scope of a day that's activity is any more necessary than the other in the datsun case that if there isn't going to stay at work until the next day he has to get home she has to get home she has to get to her car in the parking lot that is a necessary task one way or the other and in both instances where those cases are both on point in this case the line the petitioner made the choice to encounter a dangerous condition when it very much got dangerous alternatives exist without any effort whatsoever is duty was to travel from wherever she was to the personnel service and to turn in her timecard she wasn't injured by walking to the personal services she was injured by her unnecessary choice to happen over the facts i want to address the two sinners argument that there's no room for contributory negligence in orders compensation claims now i believe that that argument would be more impactful if in this case the petitioner was injured when she was looking at her phone and walked into a curb or if she was otherwise distracted by something she was doing and then tripped over the facts in this instance we don't have any she very clearly may not be decision that she was going to hop over the fence to get to the sidewalk that's not negligence that's intense and in this case the sister's argument that contributory negligence has no room in workers compensation when we absolutely agree and that's not the argument that were made it's our argument again that this argument was that this accident was not caused by the walk to the  opening where she would not have had to encounter the parents and she again it testified that it would have cost her mere seconds to take that route as opposed to encountering the fence and that is precisely why the university should not have foreseen that anyone would happen over the fence why would someone take the risk of popping over a fence when there is a route to take that would not involve the fence whatsoever seconds or feet away and that's why the university should not have foreseen that and that's why the teachers actions case were not reasonable and therefore even if she was considered a traveling employee this case would not be compensable our final argument is separate from the traveling employee argument and it's more the line with dots we've covered that to some extent but i want to touch on a couple of points essentially again its argument that the walk to the personal services wasn't what injured the employee it was the decision to either getting out of a car or getting out of a taxi crossing the street contrast that to the case bar where we have someone who is deciding to have over a chain link fence those are not the same decision activity of hopping over the fence is unrelated to the task of turning in the time card finally i want to address the street risk doctrine once again it in our briefing pointed out that the s when i watch it in this instance the petitioner made the distinct choice to encounter this risk the fence was not dangerous before she tried to hop over it it's not dangerous to anyone walking around the area not dangerous to anyone on campus reality is that only time this fence became a danger was when the kitchener tried to jump over it and failed to do so and for that reason we believe that this fence is distinguishable from a traditional street much like a  window is not a risk to anyone until you try to jump through it ultimately it was the petitioner's decision to encounter this risk that separates it from what we generally consider street risks in summary  both unreasonable unforeseeable and finally even if she was not a traveling employee she made an unnecessary personal choice to hop over the fence which had nothing to do with her employment at the university of illinois and as a result the accident did not arise out creating an assumption of the risk defense or a contributory negligence defense the fact that ms purcell chose to cross the fence  pick up the phone while they're crossing the street if their phone rang it was just something that was the most direct route to where she was going and unfortunately she suffered an accidental injury as a result the datsun decision  the fine is not based on the fact that the employee assumed an unnecessary risk only is that they assumed an unnecessary risk that was purely personal though those are the words that the dots and court uses again this decision was not purely personal she's in the process of filling a requirement that her employer has given her the fact that it happened on the university's premises also should not rule out her from for a finding of compensable ity because it happens just so happens that the university's premises requires traversing public streets and sidewalks so i don't see how you can distinguish between this case and other cases where a countering a street rest is deemed compensable by virtue of the fact that the employee needs to traverse streets  question i think while they're performing that act yes while they have to travel to drop off their time card yes i think they do qualify only come as a big surprise to the university which you think i would assume is the university doesn't have a practice i i it's a very unusual practice to have somebody mandated to bring a car to the dropbox these days but if that's the case i mean nor i if this was part of her commute it wouldn't be compensable but again the commission has found that this was in the course of her employment and  it should also be found that arose out of it because of the connection it has with her employment