of her employment such that she voluntarily removed yourself from the parties afforded generally afforded traveling employees under the illinois compensation act because the appellant city of chicago had issued a safety rule and not merely an employment directive prohibiting emergency workers from driving to be on the city limits unless specifically called upon to do so a pelleas voluntary personal sidetrip removed her from the course of employment thus the decision of the lower court should be are generally now if it's just a violation of a company rules general red general rule is course that the employee would be compensated for his or her injury if it is the city's position that this was not merely a violation of a company company rule or a company directive but in fact it was a violation of the safety fuel and the safety rule would be merely outside of the city limits having the largest violation of a safety or no other violation is nothing the fact that she was eating lunch in this case that is not dispositive of this issue that what is dispositive is the fact that she was told to not leave the city limits and in fact she did so regardless of how many blocks away or how many miles away she was from the city limits she was in fact away from the sydney i will not answer in this case the appellee was an emergency services worker it was her duty to be on call in responding to emergency calls throughout the city of chicago whether it is a safe city or not and we want to answer that but she was in fact on call at all times required to i guess drive around the city for approximately eight hours at a time in a company you can see chicago a van with her partner monitoring a walkie talkie radio waiting for dispatch the fact that she voluntarily remove herself from the city of chicago the city contends that that was a violation of a safety rule and that she had to meet herself immediately available to respond to emergency situations let's say for the sake of the argument that's accurate but there's a subtle component here and i think the law is well settled that yes you know let's say he is clearly is you know violated the rule you refer to as a safety rule but what i think a lot indicates that if things she normally does within the city except at the mere physical location you're under the city's contention is that this was in fact a personal side trip she had the opportunity to go to lunch again that the issue that she was at lunch was not the spot she could have gone anywhere in the city  long as she was in within the city limits in fact she did not the fact that she removed herself from the city limits that right there we contend is a personal side trip and also your honor both at the at the commission as well of the circuit court could not provide any credible testimony nor evidence as to what in fact she was doing we know that she was maybe eating lunch finishing up lunch and she was in this vehicle as she's turning around making her way back to the city limits in fact she was from from the available from the record what and what we have available she was in fact traveling further away from the city and making her way back around to the city limits when she was in fact involved with one defect it was morial day she testified in a lot of restaurants were closed in this city what about that she could have well another your honor another another point with the city believes in it is a salient point here is that part of her job responsibilities was to stay in the vicinity of her last call in this case her last call was at nine miles from where she was involved in an accident that's not in the general vicinity i she could have i'm sure stayed within the general vicinity of her last call again nine miles from that where she was involved in motor vehicle accident and i'm assuming there could have been a place for her to eat somewhere around there but instead she voluntarily decided to remove herself from the city limits i would know the industrial commission found against your  you have any case law authority that supports the proposition that merely by merely violating a company rules city rule in and of itself because we covered to you on the first is checkered taxi cab company versus industrial commission the affair in downtown chicago decided to then make his way to to me would be to visit a friend at the hospital on the way back from the hospital making his way back into the city limits analogous to the case here correct again what is dispositive here is that she removed herself from the city limits the city's agree big area and she could have gone anywhere in specifically she could have been anywhere near her last call which is approximately nine miles but it's not disputed that she did it while she had lunch  her which suggested what she was in fact doing at the time of the accident in fact the city had two witnesses come forth and one was howard gibson  appellate supervisor and a benjamin alonzo who's the director of emergency services for the city of chicago and they both testified that they didn't have no no call our call logs of there being a call at the time of this incident so we don't know if she was monitoring the radio and specifically to that question i don't know what is available to us excuse me is that if so if an employee does make a call and say i'm going to where ever to have  did call to say she was at lunch from what we believe what we have here i believe that she did call and i cannot speak specifically to that maybe appellee can clarify that as you know also that she was monitoring the radio she testified that she was in fact monitoring the radio but she also said that she had received a call at the time of the collision so we don't know if she had received a call prior to there being an accident and she's turning around and making her way back to the city and then she was involved in the accident but again both mr alonzo her supervisor cesar the director of emergency services for the city of chicago and mr gibbs and her supervisor have no record of all of a call being made at that time there's not and they keep meticulous records of this ok and you think that  then go to their credibility over michigan is not only to her credibility your honor but it also goes to the fact that she this this it was a personal and that this was a risk inherent to not inherent to the job she was not  performing to her job duties at the time but specifically yes it does go to the heart of her credibility because the city of chicago with these emergency services workers and you're saying she's wasn't performing your job duties because she wasn't inside the city l correct wasn't she really prefer a job duties except it wasn't she was deliberate she was doing nothing differently what she had done which she would normally have done except she was having lunch at the city i don't know what she was in fact doing at that time but from what we have in the record sure she was much like apparently she was monitoring the radio however i stress that the city believes that it's crucial for these employees to to pay particular attention to the c d c rules and not merely employment directives in that remain in this case within the city limits but whether a man under the worker's compensation it's a compensable injury sort of a separate issue but you alluded to another case that you said supported your position with that as our  case is a public service company of northern illinois versus industrial commission going back a bit it's nine hundred forty six case but the facts are very very similar to the case at hand here that was an employee who was authorized to drive a vehicle from one company garage to another he had been directed in fact not to go anywhere else but one point arise to another he in fact drove past this certain garage was presumably was to drop off this car and then he was unfortunately involved in a fatal accident when he went when his vehicle met the train the court held that the accident was not compensable because him driving home even though he was meek even though he was driving home because of a call that he received from his family may have been a family emerged they concluded the court concluded that that was not within his employment duties and that the risk was wholly his but how do you respond to this argument the argument is those cases  from this situation in one specific manner in both of those cases the employee violated rules as to both physical location and conduct here argue if you violate a rule only goes to physical location fact pattern at all to what we have here in this case yes from what you what was that case it's a public service company vs northern illinois and this is your party should be there i did not gone to eat somewhere else within the location of her last call which was again bang miles away from where she was involved in this motor vehicle accident then we would be having this conversation it will wash or it was furnace you wouldn't fall off the scaffolding we would the workers i think in a more major violation would be for example the masonry case where the bricklayer fails to close the gate and then follows that's a much more important rule than simply not crossing the driver who left his taxi went to visit a friend in may would somehow ended up with a blood alcohol level of point two two and then got into an accident i don't think they have just mentioned my client was driving the van that she just crossed to be driving she was monitoring her radio and all that she was doing was for the benefit of her of this little build issue raised by posing  of her that she was responding to all of the well let's keep in mind that number one it is a holiday weekend sometimes things do get lost over the holidays however my clients testimony is evidence of the fact that the city was unable to produce a lie again three is not my client's farm i mean she volunteered to work on a holiday and this is what happens they have visual she's not going up all over the place her job is to drive the van she was driving the van her job was to have the radio on it's uncontroverted that she was monitoring the radio it was a holiday weekend restaurants were closed she needed to get lunch she had a right to get lunch they didn't provide her with a company cafeteria she radio then that she was going to lunch and she went to a restaurant that was relatively close to the area that shoot she was at and i think that we have to go by example in masonry the bricklayer failed to secure a gate and found he was told to secure a gate that's important to keep you from falling off a building i think we can what outside the scope is is the final conclusion that we're trying to get to i think the phrase de minimus refers to the fact that we have rules that are poignant but some are more important than others and some are such gross violations that they really take you out of your job you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing you're not we're doing anything for the benefit of the employer my client was doing everything for the benefit of her lawyer so other your honor first of all counsel is often skating the intoxication issue here and interpret taxi to the nth degree here the court specifically said we did not we need not decide whether the claimants intoxication is a the issue of nine miles nine miles specifically these is the distance from where she was at the time of the accident from where she was during her last emergency call the distance of approximately nine miles the testimony at the r but at the commission and in the record obviously reflects this is that one of the employment directives was that she stay within the vicinity of the last call and again i don't know if nine miles is located so she decided to go on ninety fifth food to eat and finally honors the fact that the holiday weekend again i disagree just doesn't see that as dispositive either i mean the fact that it's a holiday weekend just because certain restaurants near where she should have been were closed op doesn't really speak to much i she should have stayed within that vicinity i'm sure she could have found a place to eat somewhere near her last call but instead she decided voluntarily her take herself away from that last call and found herself in a motor vehicle accident again away from the city which we believe was a safety a safety rule and again not an employment directive thank