something that the employer put into simply well that's the question because as you know from my brief we are sitting here subject to the manifest weight of the evidence and the commission found that it was not reasonable and foreseeable the arbitrator had found that it decided an issue with the did with the opposite conclusion be clearly appear i think that in this case the opposite conclusion clearly is apparent given the commission's history and the case law involving incidences that were far more on reasonable than this action of walking out of the stock when we had our arguments in front of this commission commissioner duffy asked what is that the respondents contention here was it too late too dark and she questioned in a way that led me to leave that she found that there was no bright light will regard to what is too late and what is too dark and it is this question of reasonableness and you have to look at it i think it's a two pronged approach foresee ability and then reasonable i said it really i think reasonable this is the key here because with regard to foreseeability it is you know from the record there were three other employees of the defendant out on that dock i'm at night when it was me that was for defendant places them or they're on way over there is a culture that has developed but you can also tell from the record this was the second hotel that they had to go in tampa because the first one was known as the party hotel i dock it is on premises this gentleman and his companion did not wander off hundreds and hundreds of feet away from the hotel they were on premises grabbing bill's was in the hotel the beach was a jason two as was the  my position on this case is that the example that you just mentioned driving this midnight pleasure dry system drive driving strong i had a case in my brief where there was a drunk driving involved and there were cruel horrible injuries sustained in the manning the jet ski you know house in two o'clock in the morning no and that's the point he wasn't going on to actually rent a jet ski he went out there to see if there was a sign the implosion this is a bit of the employer can anticipate given the history of what happens with their clearly a bear both of them are written reasonable they just chose one i believe that in this case that the opposite of the opposite is clearly apparent here based upon the history something like that i'm sorry i'm just not going to give her that number but that was certainly brought up a trial lots of the testimony at trial center around this the alcohol intake that day but again the record is clear that they didn't history again i my clients and my position on this is that the conduct was foreseeable again given the culture that developed with these like prisoner in the country and the reasonable the standard again compared to what has happened in other cases decided by the same commission and what it deemed to be reasonable this conduct was not even close to that if you  book he gave testimony to report his statement that he was looking for jet skis but he testified at trial that he was exploring the hotel premises the witness the flight attendant testified that they were looking into jet ski argument that his testimony that he was exploring hotel premises was not reasonable or forseeable and for whatever purpose he could have been i met doc between two and three o'clock in the morning he was not reasonable or forseeable or his argument is unfamiliar territory at midnight or one year that time was unreasonable and i'm forseeable in this case not only do we have consumption we have a gentleman walking that it's all together crazy bills he's focused on the jet ski quite a bit what they walk out on the dock to look at the stars to would that be unreasonable since it's part of the it well it does it it's on the record but at the end of the day if you strip all that away from the equation you have a man and a flight attendant and unknown people out on a dock somewhere between two and three o'clock in the time i think you have to evaluate everything on a case by case basis and in this case we have testament we have a buyer receipt that this guy signed three hours into it where he had four beers in  argument at the end of the day is that we can take consumption and everything aside and what we're left with is a man and a woman adachi two o'clock in the morning and we don't know what was the reason the foreseeable in the opinion of the commission because it's a fa