confirming the decision of the commission finding a compensable case and that petitioner sustained accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of her employment basically  think you'd have a much more compelling argument isn't i'm good at least starting a car hard and parcel of the travel process when she tracks when she leaves the employer's premises to go to another place as part of her and so i started below zero on somebody correct however again she and her employment premises is located in that office condominium association the car she's not traveling employee til she leaves that promise or how does she she gets an impartial puts it in drive and then she's a traveling employee so if she something happens to her inside the car after she starts it under your analysis the car has to be moving she has to put it in door she says good bye i'm going to do part of my job across town but if she gets injured between there in the car yes you know recover because it's it doesn't the insert doesn't arise and i'm all the people from the public park and effect there was testimony about a designated area where she parked but it turned out that she didn't fall in the designated area it doesn't arise out that is the case what we don't only kaner control the parking lot therefore it doesn't a know she was going back inside she had voluntarily went out to start the car by yourself she left her coat inside as a matter of fact and that was her choice of it was her choice where to park it was her choice the employer did not direct am asking you to announce that when an employee is a traveling employee then the reasonable foreseeable analysis is what's wrong with we're going to see we're going around and around at what point what is the right length rilling that makes the person in this case the traveling think until like take affirmative steps to make the traveling i pull out of my driveway ok if i slip and fall in my garage is that compensable is a reasonably foreseeable that i could yes it is yes and you are spinning down the traveling employee little bit too much frost on the windshield stops gets out of scrapes that when healed falls injury those are the two scenarios in the first scenario under your theory there's no recovery on the second scenario it would appear there would a recovery yes but what's the the meaningful distinction between those scenarios it's the qualitative acts of the employee and you know again the travelling in employee doctrine if i go to comfort like you feel like in the part of the parent process in the winter time to warm up your courage give up your windshield perhaps now but if you went out with your coat and she brought her stuff to go travelling yes if she slipped and fell carrying  my analysis as i was one of my blue suit for all arguments if i pick this up at the cleaners on saturday and i slip and fall is it recently foreseeable in chicago where there was an eye storm but it could slip in the past that the process of traveling i if you use your power as part of the traveling employee and you start your car that's part of the process the holding by the commission was preparing to travel and that's that's our argument and that's the question of all does that apply does the traveling employee exception which experienced compressibility apply to someone who is preparing for to travel that's the issue before the board we would ask you to overrule the decision of judge white set aside the decision of the commission and reinstate the arbitrator's decision which is correct in this case thank you thank you counsel there are undisputed facts in this case upon which there could be divergent inferences to be drawn there found therefore this case should be decided under the review of manifest weight of the evidence i'm asking  of the traveling employee doctrine is not supposed to be taken apart and you're not supposed to actually define what is traveling and distance it doesn't matter whether or not ms claims that it was actually driving in vehicle when the accident happened it doesn't matter if she had already reached her os a program destination shiva travelling employee based on the facts that have been presented she testified that she traveled sixty seventy percent of the week outside of the employer's premises in fact the executive director for the employer also testified that she traveled almost daily outside of the employer's pharmacist the actual day of the accident she was coming from another offsite program she made her way back to the employer's premises and then she was heading into another offsite program around four thirty four forty five when she went to the parking lot to warm up her vehicle because it was very cold and as the day she's a traveling employee all the case law supports this if you look at the jensen case that establishes the definition of a traveling employee it says a traveling employee's one who is required to travel away from the employer's premises that's where the person is in a traveling employee twenty four hours a day i mean you have to look at what was the status at the time of the injury i mean she could be fairly complete you could travel  compensated no matter what directives are at the jobsite no that's not what i'm saying i'm saying that if you're traveling once it's been determined that you are travelling pool employee to determine whether the injury is compensable you have to look at whether or not her now he's not engaged and and travelling in the sense of is he moving is he in transit is he driving a vehicle but he's still a travelling employee and if his job requires him for the majority of the time to go oxide away  we have united airline employees who i always consider traveling employees whether they're on layover or walking down the street and won't get hit by a car or whether they're actually in flight flying and they get injured by but and i agree i think that is the reason why activity i think that if you're traveling out of state or overseas on a on a job location and you're gone for two three days or a week you're going to say you're going to go out downtown to go to a restaurant you're going to be different spanks i mean whether or not you're going to actually go jump out of a plane and go skydiving that can be maybe considered not as reasonable or forseeable activity but in this particular case this woman drives off site to different programs sixty to seventy percent of the time majority of the time she's not in an office location and sitting at a desk and a fact she's a traveling employee and in this particular case it's winter time it's december it's by you see it's cold if she's almost on a daily basis driving back and forth to programs it's totally reasonable that someone's going to have to warm up their car in fact in this case it was testified that she said other companies did the same thing a no point of the employer ever say that that was not ok to go out and warm up your car so this was a very reasonable activity and in fact because the employer probably knew either and cone ploys did the same thing it was f and at the time that he injured himself he was unloading the track and he wasn't driving the vehicle he was and the alleyway behind the warehouse or the store he with unloading a truck he was assaulted  by a stranger on the street and then ended up entering his thought that in that case the court found that it was a traveling employee that was never in dispute and lish room is where there are national his secretary who sits behind a desk for eight hours a day and her boss goes or go to the post office and mail this letter so she walks down the street and she trips on her and she hurts her so she she truthful i don't think she's a because they have the status of a traveling light if anything they do no matter how we move please circumstance from the trample their compensable because they have the title of the traveling going if you see a problem with  you know defining it that way in terms of you know how much time does one need to be out of the office to be considered a traveling i'm forty but all the cases that i stated in my brief are are very analogous to the present case i mean there's cases of someone who's traveling sales rap so they're you know they're driving to different locations for their jab is a person who is it time i control operator who has to travel to get  that ok earlier so that's a look stay with us in this case the facts in this case are that we have a question of preparation to travel and then we have actual trial and it's actual movement and travel or technically she was moving she was i mean do we she she she wasn't moving from her employee members these at the time of the injury or she was she was moving around her office and address his argument and so he's asking the court to curried new law which is not what we're here to do on do their cases it's a preparation to leave the employer employers premises its cover enjoy the time she does not stay in an office setting sitting at a desk that sixty to seventy percent the time almost daily she's in her car going back and forth to offsite programs just like the cases that i cited and i said earlier th traveling salesman and or even you know if a flight attendant someone who works out of state doing trial my control these were all found that these claimants were traveling employees so once they stablish there is no such thing i submit to you as an all full time all the time probably there is no such talk in the city you cannot be a full time traveling the boy i'm connected to what you were doing at the time of the accident because to be in context you have to look at the accident and its connection to the job or the connection to the job is in the sense of whether or not your job requires you to leave the office location there are there's plenty of cases and i've stated words says you know when this traveling selzer it was driving he was killed by another i don't know bill they're not sure whether or not he was coming from doing some errand per job duty or whether it was a recreational outing in the court said it doesn't it's irrelevant because it would be reasonable in first theobald that someone who is spending let's say five or six months away from their office location traveling for their job that they may go somewhere for recreational outing that's the law and the court found that even if this was an outing that was for recreational purposes that would be considered reasonable on percent of that one fi something that they've seen happen before if that's the case then you bring that into evidence then sure of the argument would be since she's a traveling employee and that's already been established whether or not it will have to do with travel it has nothing to do with traveling in conclusion long distance travelling in ways the standard should be whether the activity is reasonably foreseeable so the guy and why the law that he's away from home he's not in chicago where he lives it's foreseeable that people go on recreational activities and should be covered local traveling employees the question should be whether they are in transit or not mr portends who is the jewel delivery guy was out  up at the jewel parking lot which is open to members of the public at large he parks his car he goes inside for a little bit and then he's on his way back to the truck but he hasn't started travelling yet and he slips and falls down is he a traveling employee no that you know there's an increased risk because you are on the road as part of your job duties at the direction or control of the employer when you're a truck driver yeah i mean the idea is to protect the worker who exposed to the risks of the street and to travel death including slip and fall of when you walk out of the jewel to get in return trip so the question then this is the injury in this case at the understand so if the guy would in the jewel to buy a bag of peanuts for themselves then you would say you know ok he was out on his route but now he deviated and i would not say that that's a deviation i would say portal the portal once he gets in a truck and drives off then he's covered the case of the secretary and she is a traveling employee at the time that she's directed to go somewhere as a condition of employment the employer tells it go over to the bank and make a deposit and she's exposed to you know a neutral street address but it's a risk that she was exposed to because she was in a you know further in the end the actions of our employe