because he had an appointment with his most important client that i was the head of the labor union in chicago he was a personal client he referred relatives to him he referred labor paces to mr preston he was a very very was walking to the bus walking into walking ok he wasn't he was not on the employer's promises when the accident occurred absolutely correct ok so your words a general rule that generally speaking and there are exceptions which i think you're probably go rushed in got out of the house and got downstairs and was going to the bus stop where he did trip and fall and an even sidewalk so the coming and going rule is the basic rule direct three exceptions to it a mission the special errand rule may be stated as family when an employee having i tend to full time and space limits on his employment makes above premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual coming and going rule the journey brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble in time of making the journey or the special inconvenience hazard urgency of making it in the particular circumstances is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an salaries employ but mr preston does have an identifiable identifiable time and space limits and is employment he goes to work monday through friday nine to five and on saturday he goes half a day and he was hurrying and hurrying is a going on a saturday she was asked to take something to the post office so she goes to the post office and a saturday and she gets to the next event and the supreme court held she was had a special mission because she was carrying her employees check to the post office was the st time she'd been asked to do that according to the facts and i believe so but i'm that one hundred percent of the facts but in my case there's nothing in the record to suggest that mr london was asked to come said at the beginning if mr if this happened it nine hundred and thirty dollars and he was just on his way there just as regular way there i wouldn't be here we wouldn't have a case because that would go in the coming collapse any decision we make could be potentially presidential so let me ask you this trying to put this in things that happen every day in the real world so if somebody works at a factory where normally gets an a and the boss says hey would you mind coming in early at night and the time of the ploy is injured on the way to work that's a mission now i didn't say that i didn't say that at all and that there's a guy from the employee says ok but in this case what makes it special is not only the fact that he's coming in early but that he's hurried and he's anxious because of objectively he got the call of eight and he was on the street before it by eight hundred and fifteen that's heard he wasn't dressed before and yet he was he's testified he was hurrying there was he was cross examined and this my opposing counsel tried to impeach him and this point with his deposition from a civil case and i think it was a very incomplete and unsuccessful attempt at impeachment but there is no here there is no dispute and i  command he's just on the street it's a public sidewalk it's a neutral risk it could happen to anybody and there are a few cases that we cited the talk about when you're hurrying something that could normally be a neutral risk becomes not a neutral risk this court ruled that when an employee or a her boss often yesterday take things down late to things late at work post to five o'clock she says she's got to take something to the fed ex office she's rush goes down the stairs and she said to hurry there's no question she's in a hurry people saw that she was in a hurry and she she she costs one step before the end she falls it really is a chance of dying as a result of the fall because she's got to get to th by five but either five o'clock or six o'clock and she's got to get home after they're so so they say hurrying takes it out it's the risk of injuries and hands relative to the general public so you stairs to the other staircase story she's going down the stairs with her sandwich or drink in her purse and she thought she was at the bottom of the stairs and she wasn't and she fell and they actually knew she was she with a wrist it was deem not just his you know he's called to come in early if he's caught he's rushing there's no question he's rushing for a very good reason he doesn't want that leave so i say he's had a special mission and  there i really like the argument that he said and problems i have now i'll be very candid about this is my client's application for benefits says he's a traveling employee on a special mission but he 's soon as he there was no question by my client testified he was not a car employee nobody there was not any and it cross examine a fact of cross examination and they have point and it was not addressed but it was immediately addressed when my name mr preston file says the application to the commission he says the court didn't consider there ever a traitor didn't consider whether he was hurrying and i didn't consider that he was few that's it it's a small personal injury for me that this isn't a mere browser you know with the glove palaces i don't know if they have any but that didn't come up and nobody disputed that it was the policy in the rules for  actually distinguishable but very similar the st is keller versus industrial condition about a police officer who had his way to work just as we do work and see somebody driving too fast for conditions he decides he's going to write a maintained by the city of chicago brust and attempted to pursue a civil action against the city of chicago as the owner of the sidewalk based on  comments and i'm somewhat troubled by her reference that it was such an important meeting they had her client was hurrying to get to the office presumably early if you look at the entire record mr brust and says i'm working i've been walking at my one or more hurried pace to pace he uses every day as he's getting to the office he was using public transportation he took no additional steps to take extraordinary travel nor did he say that my the manner in which i got to work that i was working at it walking as an extraordinarily hurrying pace and that he gave no indication that he that his actions itself from a neutral observations were anything more than his normal behavior  so the questions that were posed earlier i am unclear how one could administer a worker's compensation act and say that the mere subjective belief that an individual was at the bus stop which was a public sidewalk when the incident occurred he was not leaving his apartment building he was not hurt while he tripped on a sidewalk going from apartment building as he was walking to catch the michigan avenue bus he was tripped on the public sidewalk while he was waiting for the michigan bus to arrive so it was that he should marry him walking towards the bus  right i'm not sure if he was walking towards a bus tour as much as he was standing on a public sidewalk and he lost his footing i think that's a better way to describe it there's no indication that he was bumped pushed there's no indication law pavement i would i would say that he testified that there was a crack in the sidewalk i believe the finding that it was a de minimus change in the elevation is sufficient evidence to say that there really was not a crack as we view it goes from a liability perspective and on the worker's compensation at the palace does the nature of the impediment or probably cause them to fall really relevant i believe it's not i believe that if one was to ignore the neutral risk analysis and apply the question of whether or not he's a traveling employee and whether the risk associated with getting to your office is a risk that distinctively associated with his employment is probably a more appropriate but now alice this is not a situation for  that individual mr brotherson was a truck driver who is transversing stairs either at his company's building or at a place where he is making a delivery this is not a situation  where it's an individual who is writing the circuits whether raises salesman a judge or anything along those lines he is an attorney licensed to practice law who has one principal place of business his office he was asked to come in or he was asked to deal with the situation when the office manager called him to say that mr babka which was perceived by mr  important client had arrived early you'll find that the record is the void as to whether or not mr brosnan talked to mr babcock i smitty in fact didn't that he took upon himself to get dressed to shower and then to leave his apartment which he chose to live out and get to the office earlier than he intended to do mr poe if i think we're familiar with the basic facts can you comment on t n you address those two specific exceptions that he has raised sure  is returns home to pick up his wife that he was working he had already arrived at his employer's from says he then was working overtime the employer asked him to stay beyond his normal work schedule he in fact then got permission to go pick up his wife as he picks up his wife he then returns to his employer as directed and he gets into unfortunate accident  there is you know the workers compensation act as asked earlier it was intended to protect employees against risks which are peculiar to the nature of the work that the individuals employed in this is mr brosnan's a lawyer he's a good lawyer he is successful lawyer he sits in his office he negotiates settlement he probably takes actions which are related to pursuing a civil action he is not a truck driver he is not a policeman and the fact that council will say that that he is a on call employee therefore it's compensable isn't necessarily  true and the easiest illustration would be the police officer has who has was asked earlier and i agree who has a statutory duty to promote safety in the health and welfare of the general public twenty four hours a day seven days a week is out or deer hunting or doing something along those lines and he's carrying a gun a rifle or anything to that effect to pursue his activities he's a twenty four hour i call employee he's carrying a gun and if he testifies one carrying a gun because i'm required to that doesn't make it that he's on call employee to be covered under workers comp let me ask you this the way mr rosen has characterizes you know the last firm has a policy under certain circumstances let's assume it was established marlise as a policy under certain circumstances a lawyer can be called i brosnan's testimony to mean that if in fact situations arise with mr bad that he used to be consulted with and get involved in those situations ok it doesn't mean that he has to come into work you could simply be that in fact mr bob cocked but based on the testimony of mr brosnan is an important client he could have tried talking to mr babcock he could have told mr ba via the office manager or any other attorneys who were there reminding him of the ten o'clock appointment reminding him that mr breslin would be coming in but instead he took upon himself to leave client important client he was to get involved in all dealings with it i'm a little i'm a little concerned with the application of what miss rose and is is proposing if what makes it special is the fact that mr brust needed to come into work versus talking to the person by phone merely because this was an important client really think of all the cases that we're now going to be flooded with now let me just illustrate to young associate is working at a law firm his hours are nine to five he was given a project he was given a project by the party to say you need to prepare this memorandum and we're going to be presenting it to our client this afternoon it was special to the individual and it might be special to the firm but no one told that associate that he better come in early to make sure that it's perfect that all the citations are there shepherd eyes and all that he imposed that pressure onto him self that he thought this  project was special so the special mission if it if you miss rosen is to be accepted in her argument would simply say any time an attorney or any time and any employee in the office building perceives that they're being asked to come in and do something and participate in a firm presentation or get work done therefore become special because they're coming in before their normal work hours and that and that's on the minister bill how do you create a system in which you're going to say to every individual by the way we know your said hours are going to five can we say to that individual you're not you know that you are entitled to go these benefits more importantly if i accept miss rosanna's argument that someone's a traveling employee because they're on a special mission what happens when the person returns home the person says well i've been a traveling employee all day i came in early and while i came home my normal route my normal means of transportation i had an accident at that point in time the individual is going back to his damn asylum his residence but we're still have that late will now we have he's a traveling employee became because he came in earlier than he normally does based on self imposed concerns mr breaston had a valuable client i understand that mr bronson wanted of the firm to flourish i understand it he wanted to profit by maintaining a relationship with mr badcock and he acknowledged in his testimony that there were no dire consequences by him not meeting with mr backpack that day i just don't i don't understand how an individual who is told by her boss to go to the post office with a check and get the postage meter uploaded or an individual as mr rosen argues who is walking down with  been for his personal purpose we would be out of the backs if the guy just that he should speed walk on his way to the bus stop or speed was the way to work we'd have no case because that would be personal business and that would not apply here so  that the question was he standing still busy at the bus stop there are photographs of the sidewalk in the record but i didn't believe he was that standing still this wasn't that he left his balance when he was standing there he was and he was looking to see if he would the bus was coming it doesn't matter that he wasn't pushed or bumped because he wasn't standing still so long as planes than the palace made i think are irrelevant likewise it's irrelevant that the  never what is i mean get dressed and showered and got to the bus stop and within fifteen minutes of being caught he was responding it wasn't to express direction you missed we have a policy here that says  if you look at mr preston testimony carefully you can see this was such an important client to him that that he did not believe that sort of response would have sufficed so that the injury was basis just decide to use the most concern that this this could be presidential and it could be setting a bad president if anybody could just say well i'm coming in you know i say good or good mr know you did me you said this is could be presidential and you know it but it's not about just coming in her coming into work early it's not it's just it's about being at a case by case basis you can see that he was hurrying because of the work and it was a part of the work and so that his injury was a rose out of his work and the case law supports the act that hurrying does play a part  and that's up to the parties to determine you know intent to establish the hurrying and that makes a difference in both of those cases which involve neutral risks there was in the case where the woman spelled out the st case where the woman fell down the stairs the cease williams