on the employer employee is clearly a manifest weight question i'm i think there's an argument to be made that the accident issue is a matter of law but the facts are not in dispute on i think we can all agree that she had an underlying seizure condition right where i differ there is a too much no right to control leave all the supervision that took place involved sure how to use this wind which by all accounts didn't take very long at all and showing her where all these different meters work throughout the city once that was done and those first during those first two after that she had on the first two months there was to be no more supervision i i equate this to a neighborhood kid knowing your lawn your t the lawn real strong argument we make sure him only as it turns out this is harvey i also read meters for the city of lawrenceville so i would be the only one to be no more you other neighbor's lawn too so and in that respect i think i would disagree with your premise point out though that is not really addressed by the commission is the board of education versus a commission case we're talking about mutual sam now in that case it involved a volunteer student working at a school and she would report to the assistant principal and he would give her daily assignments and clearly had a considerable amount of control over this student's activities and i would argue significantly more control than what the city had of ms harvey and  court held that she was not an employee because there was no mutual assent of an employer employee relationship nobody contemplated in employment relationship i think we have the same thing here in this case that she was certainly  so you lose money every time well i guess i would i would differ with the premise there that in each of those cases there's evidence of a significant amount of control and i would argue that there's not that level of control here who supplied her with the equipment she had to use in order to do or get the wand was fired by the city who supplied her with the batteries to go into one also the city who charge the batteries every evening both who's out who's obligation was obligation i mean she performing an obligation that it was the city's duty to do you know i don't take it that far i don't make that leap it's a fair you know the effect it would somebody has to make well i think the evidence that the general public does deal with standing water what we usually do see any water they do where they have to bend down in in read a meter i mean i think we can argue about what her physical the largest part maybe this is too subtle but even if you take care of arguments a lot of passion we have a point there but the general public as the general in the general public avoid going into the water and bending down but she can't that's part of her  week that's correct well deserved any evidence that this water wasn't always standing there were the i mean was there any evidence about that at all the evidence that it's a low lying areas are telling us on the one hand common in that part of the state as far as when she would have to go with that just gets to the flexibility of her job now whether you know there is no evidence that it would all evaporated in a matter of six days so could have been the same if you still send her the entire period so she had to leave the meter that's right i was just responding to the statement he had to be there at that time and the commission could have inferred that and counsel you argue in your brief to no standard for you here are you continuing to maintain that only a single and she was reading that meter the fact that she could have gone there when it was dry or that she shouldn't have gone there when it was wet is wholly irrelevant this is not a negligent place the attitude that's not my argument i was worse i'm sure of the risks yes that was not my argument i was responding to a question my argument is that she was not exposed to a greater risk then who and the public there's a public go into that when harry got a regular basis and read meters no server for her for way this is said this area is is common in that part of the state that's fine but the general public doesn't have to go into that area she asked you to read a meter she can't get around it ok if it's a count i think the argument is if it's like a common i mean with my laundry list here ok the nature of the work performed by employees or relation to the general business of employer i'm a truck driver working for a trucking company yeah and i will say mr postman he's analogy with the law it's part of their business and they can figure that into the price they charge for water for instance there may be some other things so the commission didn't consider factor that hasn't already been identified by a court of review as significant to the observation in cases of this sort that determination as to whether or not it's an employee here and dependent contract or whether the individual is one of the other seems like lip service is paid to that standard of review and  list of factors that the courts have identified and then there's also the weight to be applied to those factors so it gets that even though the mention is made of the standard of review we end up getting what appears to be had  vote argument being made here ultimately it's how the commission weighs those various factors and they weight appropriate factors here is that right i believe it is right i don't think we can say that they're absolutely positively wrong this should be anywhere and the record in the brief and the argument i mean they made some differences from from the facts and we had an arbitrator ok the rule against me go to one against me then we won the i p l then we went to the commission and it was a two three decision so you are going to split us two people thought i should when two people thought i should so clearly reasonable minds i think everybody that reviewed this was reasonable could say one way or the other and in this particular case and weighing all the evidence they commission decided  she was an employee and this did arise out of the then point you know to address i feel i should mention where this happened and the court has brought up some excellent points about the location  had to find they had to go looking for they had to traipse through the woods to find her laying face down in the pool water because it's it's down a hill over spolin ground there's trees this is not a path that is well traveled by the general this is on private property off of  oil lease service road it is not well travelled all her big will go into the testimony was sitting there idling for quite a long time the radio playing with the route books from the city and there somebody finally call the city and this isn't the festival and said hey a condition that the general public is exposed to it is not a puddle no matter how many times mr gross me says if you have kids or grandkids they might play in a puddle on a rainy day you would not want anybody related to your that you know plenty or spending any