compensation in a snow and ice case that involves negligence one looks at fault of the parties when you're talking about a worker's compensation claim fault of the parties is not a dish you know that's increase risk from the general public and that's what you would use in a case where for instance somebody leaves the premises and goes to lunch and gets hurt and you can use increase risk in the general public this is on premises and so the commission applied the wrong test which is whether or not in a rose out of the condition of the end of the premises and so that's the difference so anyway i cite five that specifically talk about the condition of the premises four of these are snow and ice cases they all work compensation and one of them is a supreme court case a t m two of them are decided on to no springfield which i think they're talking about how a building i'm not positive has one of the yeah so yeah it broke and so so if you look at it that way the in the in that record they cite the wrong kind of a wrong street so i is not like a public sidewalk where you're walking around the building this is exiting the building if you look at the video she walks out maybe twenty feet she's still on that exit from the building part of it it's not like you're just on a general sidewalk it is on premises there is testimony it is on premises if you were off premises this case would be terrible it is on premises service for which you leave the building doesn't matter correct because  promise that that's i mean i think either way you analyze this and that's that is accurate under the personal comfort doctrine you look at when it was on premises if it's personal comfort like it was in this case on premises it's  while for instance price is not that's one where there's a to lady who's working at the courthouse she's a child support for nader and she leaves the building and she's coming back to the building just like this coming back on the same type of a public defect or a hazardous condition under the law if you look at a d m that that's what that says if you look at morris harvey it says that all these cases are snow and ice cases and they all say it is a condition of the premises that someone falls slips friend well that's true i mean i suppose if you're leaving to go get drunk in a bar in might be different but this wasn't that and so that's why the i suppose the comfort doctor comes in because that guy on  bar right there gate kind of thing she tried to walk around and she slipped and fell on the ice on premises because this spring court said that's compensable because it was condition comes here and the defense tried to say and she did it wrong if she wouldn't one where she's leaving for the end of the beginning of the end of the day but i don't see it a distinction between leaving to go home and for personal comfort so your argument on his art this or that should point i'm sorry that that was haven't spoken to i see that is it to me i look at price the court to decide that to know and so there's no question of fact and because she was on company property when she was coming back to them because she made it to the company that means that you use the test as to whether or not it is a condition crimes as opposed to the general public which is i think what people people tend to want to do you know work what about her employment requires her to expose herself to this hazardous condition going to get a cup of coffee while going to shoot she is not required by her employment to get a cup of coffee that's personal com because the personal comfort and and and also because she was coming to or going from work and it there's no despite there is no logical distinction between leven because i want to go home as opposed i want to go get coffee because you know i'm going home for personal comfort real right i mean however you approach that i'm leaving because i want to go back home and get out of the building and but there is  the injury must be due to the demands of the employment the demands of employment was coming and going to from work going out in the snow and ice group was a dangerous condition is a personal choice outside of the case is one where the guys on lunch break on premises playing first and they said that's personal property the court in some of these two said getting fresh air is this circuit city case i think it is called is the one where the automatically because person is leaving every time to premises personal and i want to get a sandwich i want to get a cup of coffee i want to do whatever where the bottoms of his personal comfort back personal comfort doctrine says the most important thing you look at when you're talking about these types of claims is where it occurs is it on premises or off and this was and that was you have left the building or who you know in the end it was a land of work related purpose getting coffee is where she worked the city owns the walkway up to the building yeah she worked at city building though this is the city building she's worked in and she relieving she's leaving the building she's made i don't know how many maybe fifteen twenty feet up you yeah absolutely she's walking out of the building she walked straight out the building she doesn't get to the general sidewalk right she's walking out of the building straight out the girl sidewalk with not the promises they've been right i agree with either of them if she was in the general public entrance which this woman was using which has stairs to go down to an area that santa promises there is a plaza immediately to the west of this building it's a public plaza i believe it's  plaza she doesn't work in the plaza this is not the premises she works in the municipal center east which is also where there's coffee available she comes in and she does not enter through or exit work through those  it's a ramp she parks and that if she had fallen there no problem that would have been compensable there's an entrance she can go to from that parking lot that someone she's required to come in it would have been on that  sidewalk that's another loss of by the way and bad one because that's the area she has to come in that could be required but the most is it's it's a parking lot required parking he archer daniels midland she was coming to a gate it was not a general public gate it was a vent doors only gate public can't come in there and that's where she fell on snow and ice and she was going into work it's required to get  employee voluntarily and in an unexpected manner exposes himself to a risk outside the exercise of is duties and this is not one of her duties it's not compensable we're saying that wal mart covers it anyway mean we're beating a dead horse i mean let's be blunt if you're on a public plaza how could you be on the employer's premises for a correct it's one way or the other there's no in between right and we further questions here that i'm happy to a distinction between the two the walkway from the building to the sidewalk or entering the possible no it's literally as you walk out the door it's the only way to get up to the right and you can't if you can't say this is a sidewalk that leads from the building or it's a walkway that leads from the building to the public sidewalk but sort of nobody came out from the city and said well this is really the general public right and then nobody testified like that and we in that and ray says and suter says both of those are public buildings right and they're right outside and testimony was that your client was on the premises and that was on reported by the city correct that's absolutely true well we have a picture of where she fell video