a case where the petitioner sees me the claimant was provided with the rules or the rules the training and the tools to properly perform his job duties in a court this employer's expectations vehicle was not customary it was not reasonable nor was foreseeable the sort of courts consider money to misappropriated if that was my question is there any evidence he was using it for his own purposes he was taking it and using it for personal use his one is to create a number of witnesses through who will testify to the same conduct being carried out and the employer's acquiescence and such or the the plate claim in this case could testify to numerous specific and detail instances which the same car that was carried receiving a informal oral instruction from his employer not to read his hand into a certain exhaust pipe if something should fall into it when it gets out and as a result of such he was injured now at before the supreme court he or at arbitration he argue job i mean that's like suggesting that if a truck driver speeds and you supporters turns you down supposed to speed and he gets into an absolute he can't recover that's nonsense bu says maybe he's a wong but you know so what's the choice what would the employer like the worker to do if he thinks that the vehicle in the amount of pipe is unsafe he's supposed to take off and then you'll be alleging that you violated some other rule because he was driving a vehicle and doing this for the benefit of the employer now similar to this case there was also testimony there by numerous witnesses that this was a custom practice with my examiners to use material according or that similarly there was also testimony that ant role they control the means of transportation and that they actually picked up the employees and took them to their place employment for them or by doing so the employer received a benefit quantifiable benefit where he was able to employ inexpensive least the clore my name's henry schmidt i represent the petitioner joseph weapons in this matter the standard of review in this case is manifest weight of the evidence the issue as to whether an injury arose out of an in the course of one's employment is a question of fact for the commission to decide and its determination or not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest w was if an employee quote and this is out of the olson case initially if an employee is required to travel and the employees in involved in reasonable services of an employer at an appropriate time and place an injury that occurs will be considered to be in the course of employment there's been several appellate court cases recently that have the kinds of cases whe that the injured employee was a traveling employee i used that case partly though to to because of some language in the decision of age five forty six however an exception to this general rule is this where where and when as in this case the employer for its own benefit provides the employee with means of transportation to and from or quote in such a situation as the transportation is considered to expand the in course of element while apparently providing the risk incidental to the of employment this satisfy the arising out of element so the facts we have in this case is that in i'm sorrier that it's located in moline that's where its offices and shop are and that does business in  a radius of one hundred to one hundred fifty miles away and i'm this is a mechanical contractor a large one who has fifteen sixteen service tax  authorized as councils with knowledge to get the vendor home nobody is disputing that he was doing something improper ok been home i think there's two issues that you need to respond to his first point is not withstanding that he was in violation of company policies this accident happened because he was in third violation of a policy he's claiming it's a you can't be unloading these things if your premises are right your home b he's saying he hadn't really started the journey yet so how do you respond to those  well when you provide the company vehicle it's just like a tractor truck driver in a truck yard i mean when you good starts out in the morning and he's making a trip of an hour and a half he's got to make sure that the vehicles prepared and ready to go safety reasons he was going to take this extra pipe the unnecessary pipe up to you know to an hour and a half up in the opposite direction of the the  company offices and so i think he hadn't pulled out of the drive yet but he was working in his driveway to get to truck prepared for safety put in argument as he's in the decided mr lupin's testified that he wasn't aware of any company policy and he was aware of any union policy that prohibited him from taking the bike on the truck or from doing anything that he decided to do mr  was the vice president of the company that testified last said he didn't have a copy of the company you know the written company handbook and he wasn't sure what it said anyway and then under cross examination it was kind of leading well wasn't this in violation of union policy with the insinuation always that even though it was included in a brief it was a misappropriation of property would that somehow mr lifton's was involved would warn you saying that it would make a difference of the outcome here rep and did know that it was against company policy to remove this honor i'm saying it it was a question of fact based on his testimony that there was no violation of company policy but the only cases the only case really the only three cases that they could have hung their hat on this wasn't a safety rule i mean that's that this was to keep employees from misappropriating material in and there's no written thing in the record my client says he never heard of anything like that from the company there  build no you know so your argument is you can't violate a policy you don't know about i don't think there was any violation of our state defend it or respond it didn't didn't really prove it was kind of  relevant i think in this case even if there was a policy and even if you was aware of it which factually i don't think it you know that oh he was asked this pipe that was being removed had any value and he said how could a pipe would be worth twenty twenty one foot section would weigh about five pounds and be with fifty cents a pound so he answered that question the misappropriation question very loudly in the in his testimony not until he puts the car and drive the you subscribe to them on the commission didn't specifically finding to be a traveling employee they use the default did it arise preparing it and i think he's definitely in the course of his work and me and the injury are arises out of as soon as he starts preparing the trough it doesn't matter if he  cleans snow off or when shoulder off the roof for a change the tire boy took unnecessary material that he thought would be a safety hazard off of it so there was a vehicle doesn't have to be in motion right correct he was preparing for the trip and getting ready to go and he said his testimony was that he did this every his testimony was all right so describe what you were doing occur occurred this is it page ten and eight twenty five i got out and started the truck and got warmed up it was kind of dewy that morning and the temperature had dropped i don't know fifteen degrees something during the night there and it was just a doing morning so i went out started up the truck about wipers going made sure you know the lights are on we have to check the trucks every morning check for brake lights or headlights out or  rule and you know the court decided it was i mean the commission decided it was reasonable what he was doing at the time and they it but it is a question of fact and it's not against on the road but if your choice job that wasn't needed on that was in the opposite direction of where that the company offices and and shop was