although she fell in a parking lot this is not party wide base she did not park in the parking lot where she fell parking lot where she fell is restricted to police officers and maintenance workers while the parking lot selfless by parklane back they maintained the sidewalks all the other parking lots this particular location addressed by the lower courts they simply applied parking lot exception because she felt the parking lot however all the cases every single parking lot case involves a parking lot where the claimant fell here parked in college is a series of buildings and there are some maps in the record it's one of these places that expanded over time but around the cluster of buildings are the main parking lots within the cluster of buildings is where the maintenance and police parked and that's where she felt she was on in route to her parking lot which was not even visible from where she fell so it's our contention that this is more of a coming and go we work to we're going to work cla and the issue is whether it was to outweigh or not it's not simply the parking lot exception case that's what the commission the size of the facts on they examine the parking lot because of that because it was personal risk and short it should be found not in the course of her employment however i know counsel will argue question of whether it was in the course of is always a back question however when making that decision today again why the parking lot exception the commission did not consider or make any findings as to whether it was an intended path or not the standard of manifest weight can't be applied to claims well the evidence that they looked at was whether he was in the context of the parking lot exception maybe they didn't look at the other theory of the case they're correct there is case again all the parking lot cases involve the question as to whether it's against the manifest way or not whether the lower court's decision gets the benefits weight or i don't know how can even be good for us when that issue wasn't even mention are generally not compensable unless there's a parking lot exception here there where is it but she didn't park in that parking lot her strip parking lot wasn't for purse she was here when it parked there the accident so it doesn't line up with any of the parking lot exception cases it was simply petitioner mentioned it being a sidewalk to common sense says sidewalks don't have parking barriers process in this case she stepped over the sperry or when they maintain the path was nearby that was the safe path as she stepped a few feet over and used to maintain pain after she won the slipped on the ice so i think at the very least the court should and the record also supports your honors may it please the court my name is daniel jones and i represent the apply this report made up by any facts that are in the record that support the finding of the industrial commission and in this case not only did lisa l or testified that faculty and staff and students all use this parking lot or this this  way which is a sidewalk if you look at it it's sidewalk but the other the other person that testified to that was the respondents own supervisor of maintenance and he also testified that it's used by employees all the time and what the employer doesn't want you to consider is that this is a parking lot that she not only gets to park in some of the time but she has to park in some of the time she gets to parking in the parking lot when she is just there for a brief period of time to drop off materials or things like that but she also needs to park there on weekends because she has a doctorate of veterinary medicine there are animals that live in the veterinary part of that clinic of the school and to get to them on the weekends when it's her turn she has to go and go through this perking life and its surrounding pathways to get into the building through the security doors because there's only one set of security force that can get into that wing so she is an intended user of this parking lot at times and so  all strangely designed in and she and the students and anybody else are allowed to park out there of time this particular parking lot though has parking for other people now there are five signs in the parking lot and three of them say no parking security personnel only and that's for the police vehicles that there are two other parking lots that say for official use only to our parking and that's where she gets to park when she is either dropping stuff off or in the weekday and when she's there on the weekend now again she has to go in through the security doors and can only get there through that parking lot so even if she's there on a saturday and she parked out at him six one of those outlying parking lots where she or she was still have to take this path that she took  in reverse and go through this parking lot and go through so you're telling me the parking lot is the sidewalk to place normally for that and the surrounding pathway that's not it is i think she's an intended user that parking lot packed the parking lot and was stepping out into the parking lot over this concrete barrier they are going to place right there in the sidewalk though the sidewalk where the sidewalk would lead to the parking lot yes it did ok and that  well and but i think partly on the hook for that they are usually a sidewalk they permitted people to use and then they put a barrier across i think that's another reason to affirm this decision is that they have created this hazardous condition in a corking lot pathway that they know about and it's certainly different than the cases that they've cited in their brief as saying you know this is a deviated pathway i mean if you read those cases warden and   that had gravel on it and could have walked up a gentle slope into a paved parking lot and went into the construction area he chose dix were able up a forty five degree slope of dirt that was covered with gravel and debris clearly deviating from the pathway hatfill is the same way there's a ditch with water running through it through the parking lot and there's a fifty fifty feet either side of him there's a pathway that he could walk up to the to the in the next level or a  roadway fifty feet to the south of the roadway is important there but he chose to jump over this dish and that's when he was hurt and that's when it's found that he left the course and scope of his employment is when he chose to ignore available walkway to jump the ditch same thing in datsun she left it halfway paved halfway because she was taking a short cut over a grassy slope that had been having rain and water it's icy and watery she left that safe pathway to go over an icy grassy slope and well these are conditions that are different that leaving a paved walkway and it's also important to know what's in these two cases there are cases if you read hatfill the court she and the case there dotson case tells us you don't have to take a designated walkway you are choosing you are free to choose what would normally be a safe route and if you go through if you walk over a paved walkway they provide that doesn't have ice or other north or could've gone to the south been taken to a roadway not a designated sidewalk but it roadway and that was should have been a normally safe path and he could have taken either one of those the court tells us that he could have been in the course and rising out of his employment but he chose to jump the ditch and so there's not a requirement under illinois law that you go on some sort of specific designated pathway and you are not required to take just one pathway you are allowed to take what would continuous concrete or separate off and then separated by a little space and then another block separated by space but it was one complete it was the second thing that is one big concrete block but it she fell and she has the choice she could keep going on it on a sidewalk that leads into one entrance of the building where she can walk down an access road into the small parking lot and then to the sidewalk which she fell and go in the building  rose out of the employment there are actually two exceptions to the rule that we're going to and from the place of business is you know the first one is what employees present at the accident scene is required by performance of her in college she teaches there she has got to be on the premises more than members of the general public there are times she can only access the building through the security interests which is off of that small parking lot so she has to use that parking lot in an athlete she uses this walkway is exposed to risk my church more than the general public so i think the first exception is another reason to justify the commission's decision in addition to the parking lot cases the i think the correct manifest weight of the evidence standard was applied crossing over her going through history and why it was frequently used by faculty and others do they enter the reserve by crossing the same parking space i'm with you well and burns testified as i say i'm out of time and i think that i think they are and i think the direction goes back to their dots and case which says the district is free to choose what would normally be any safe path to to go to and from work to get to the parking lot and i think once you acquiesce to that you're aware of the situation you're on notice as their own personnel testified to i think you're on notice to maintain all of those walkways in a position of safety for your employees you don't get to the public used the doors that she did talk about the path that was chosen by the public she said the doors also the they get just it if you are