was then reversed by the circuit court and i'm here today to ask you to reverse the decision of the circuit court for a couple of reasons  first issue that was pointed out which in my opinion is an easy one is whether there was a safety violation in this case and i think the answer is it's irrelevant here based upon  then distinguished and the general heinz case here it doesn't matter whether he was violating a safety rely caterpiller him out it was clear he was doing his job and this occurred and i think the gerald hines case points out here there's a difference between private activity when you're not in a course of employment when you're not doing your job duties and when you are there's quite a bit of testimony and hearing regarding whether or not he was violating a rule by sitting on a tractor finding there is no testimony or that anyone was ever welcome mandate for doing that and what i would say to you is that's really a relevant here because we know he was doing the job of a spotter at the time to get her one of the us this court to reject any other memory going that because i do think it's irrelevant with regards to the main issue in front of you which is whether or not this arose out of it in the course of i'm only men do the increased risk of injury really although in some ways  this is phrased as a legal issue i think this is a manifest weight factual finding issue because if you look at the arguments here made by caterpillar they're essentially arguing to you the commission is wrong and they're factual finding that speed here is an inherent risk of the job of a spotter that's a factual finding and i would guess the score the to uphold that that it's not against the manifest weight of the evidence that they need to be aware of what's going on and he admitted that the job of the spotter was to look out for other machinery and basically to look out for what the overhead work was being done to make sure that there was a clear  way for them that no other machines interfere he admitted they had to be aware and that's why he wanted them on their feet is what he testified to in addition mr flores has put this whole accident report indicates that he got up fast to aware of their surroundings so i think that's a little inconsistent with regards to what their actual job was if this father was not in him and aware of what was going on what could go wrong it would from what i understand it would be dangerous met machines could collide someone could get in the way of other want that was going on overhead that that was a particular job the spotter on and i think a certain commonsense element would say would you really need a spotter if there were that he was aware of other spotters who had sat down before so you know the concept of just to hurry up and get up and react to the call you see answer would be yes that's his job as a spotter which is what they were saying here someone calls and it's his job to react ah there were just caution in the locker and as to the fact that while he may sit for a while and not have to do anything i think that's irrelevant the point is when he's called the bottle he has to react to be aware why did he have to be aware because when they call he had to react i don't think it's against the manifest weight here that the commission found implicit that that speed was an inherent element here on what happened here was they called his name he wasn't just getting out off of a tractor frame because he didn't feel like sitting anymore he was getting up because his name was hall i think those are different circumstances here it's the facts that we have the supervisor testifying that as a spotter he had to be aware his job was to look out for other machinery and to basically when he's called upon to do what is necessary think you have to look at the action whether they were in the course of the employment and the actual action that's being done if a security guard is sitting on it at a chair and that a friend gave any gets up to go get a cup of coffee and examples i just gave with a body and a supervisor that said he didn't have to react christine even though he was a security guard we don't we don't require it i think the commission has the right to make credibility determinations here and that situation i think we would all agree that's that's ridiculous of if somebody stealing something in their security guard to say that he's not required i say the same thing here i think it's ridiculous to say that speed is not required when overhead is calling his name and it's his job to look out for other machinery and look up below danger if he didn't answer answer that question there's no evidence of that there's no evidence there that they had that he was to be looking out for anything that the job required him to be aware there's no evidence there that that was my understanding upon that and based upon what he was doing at the time which as i said i think there is a difference between getting up to go get a cup of coffee and reacting to an overhead worker i certainly think that the please the court how will this will be on behalf of the respondent caterpillar inc it's clearly the law in illinois that it's not enough that you're injured at the place of employment your injury also his testimony under direct examination he didn't even testify that he stood up he was sitting down he turned to look at the gentleman in the courts no regard for him i think she came up with it from one of the medical records when he initially reported it he said he stood up bass it is not from his direct trial testimony but it is and if it is in the medical records yes  risk he testified that he had long periods of inactivity that would last forty five minutes to an hour during this period of time he was allowed to sit down his supervisor test by the prefer be on his feet in the work but he also testified that there was no consequence to sitting down during one of these instances well he was sitting down for his name calling in a seated position he turned this is an activity of daily living we turn chairs when we hear our name call from time to let me ask you this if the record would support a finding that he jumped up or stood up they asked would he be covered under the to protect the people on the ground from i believe falling objects from people doing overhead work so it's not like an office worker who gets up out of the moves there's an inherent element of protecting poll workers so there's an argument that for  you know as part of this when you have to protect the physical safety of those around you may have to move quickly it's not that are bad but there is no evidence to support and simply an inference there is officer or a security guard this is in a game you're going doing a warning job they can be done verbal but if he doesn't move fast arguably somebody could be seriously hurt if he's not alert but he could be seriously hurt but i don't think there's any evidence that this overhead voice work presented any degree of danger certainly not from stratford certainly not from the petitioner himself this is in prin rod just because the job is forty oist spotter and there's no indication that he had to move quickly any time to prevent the damage the thing is that he wasn't doing any of those activities when he was injured he was simply sitting down it's not even clear that when they shot his name they wanted him to operate the white house for all we know they shouted his name because they were getting ready for a coffee break that's wh only spine surgeon testifying in this case that this was the natural progression of his disease following his ninety nine surgery and he further stated that the mechanism of injury in his case which is turning in a seated position i warm to watch out for traffic and other machinery to warm now i think there is a distinctive difference here whether mr flores was sitting behind a desk with a microphone no one or whether it was required to nineteen and one twenty of the transcript as to the procedure here the procedure was they would call his name when the voice needed to be moved why did the boys need to be moved when they needed to go to another project or when they were machinery of the way when there was a problem there mike he indicated called his name that's what he was reacting to in this case counsel also admitted there would be a difference if it is as i indicated a security person is merely getting up out of a chair or getting up out of a chair to chase someone what was mr flores doing at this time getting out to react to mike overhead what was his job his job was one to ensure the safety while the worst operators were acting so i don't think it's against the manifest weight of the evidence here for the commission to find the speed and it is an inherent risk of the job if they didn't hear at risk of every action and mr flores would have done it as a horse operator no i don't think that's exactly what they're saying as i said if you were getting up to get a cup of coffee i think this would be a different story but we know from us i don't buy the testimony he was off of this this tractor frame and as i indicated you could you know because he's required to react when they well that's rea doing i think he testified he testified that way received a signal from the mainland crew that it was his job to reacted to watch for of his job is to maintain safety in the area and that's why there is a difference between he's getting up to go to the restroom he's getting up to get a cup of do and that's why i would say there's a big difference here between a security guard getting up to go to the restroom or security guard getting up because he's tired of sitting and a security guard getting out of a chair to pursue a suspect spotter because he's there to maintain the safety in the area when they're working just as a security guard is there to maintain safety so when he is called he has to react that's what his whole job is and that's why i think the commission