stated that the defendant was somehow at a greater risk than the general public here because as a cashier she worked in the front of the store that was free and i almost took her to sealing glass windows must be found at that location was  in the employee's location at the time of accident it is we would submit that the commission the circuit court in this case apply the proximate risk doctrine which has been rejected doctoring which has been rejected by the illinois supreme court and which is not supported by any case law since the brady decision what do you believe the appropriate standard of review is for which i believe that this should be reviewed to know all the facts in this case are not in dispute everyone agrees that this employee was in the course of her employment when this accident occurred there was a third party get all that drove through the front of are disputing whether or not the law was applied correctly here and as i said we believe that b commission based their decision solely upon the patient and where she was standing which is the impro not to record in this case shows that there was no evidence to support a conclusion that there was some factor which increased their rights they referenced the large glass windows proximity of what they refer to as a parking lot that's actually a misstatement of the facts the record shows that was not a portion of the parking lot it was actually very aware cars were prevented restricted from driving so while the commission references the large glass windows there is no evidence to show that those glass windows somehow created a great was a very similar situation where there was a car that drove off the roadway and struck a building that was close to a roadway by the way i want to clarify potential right here in the person who actually caused the accident distributed it's a red herring in this case we would have a different set of facts and a different analysis of the injury occurred because that business that delivery person was in the store and caused some injury that would be a risk somehow related with the employment and who was invited in as part of that business that's not the case here this is a neutral risk and must be viewed as a neutral rest because that individual ha left was no different than any other third party driver at that time so then i submit that there is no what happens to support a conclusion that there was some aspect of the the business if that was your business somehow caused an increased traffic pattern there was no evidence to suggest that that was the case no good hypothetically that could change the hypothetically that kind of if there was some nature of the business being run in the case that increased traffic flow you could say that that there is a greater risk for the employees because of the increased traffic flow associated with business in the present case there is no what have been hints of prior accidents no evidence that there was somehow and any aspect of that while we were making the argument that any member of the general public who was in the store was the analysis that we should look at we agree that we should look at the general public as a whole but we did find out there was a customer of the store who was also injured in the same incident so why would we argue that as a commission we should award benefits to an employee who happened to be standing in the same location and is a member of the general public who is shopping at the start time council has relied on several cases jews submit that there was an increased risk but if you look at those cases including illinois institute of technology and the restaurant development group which was three bowling pieces all of those cases include some evidence that the location inherently led to a greater risk now when i institute of technology there was evidence that the area where the employee was working was a high crime area and that used testimony of an area detective and restaurant development group there was a canon evidence that this was an area of increased gang activity looking at the present case there is no such evidence she supports the conclusion that people or any aspect of the business lead to a greater risk and there's no this case counsel suggests that the photos of the building which were submitted into evidence clearly show that the building could not stop a vehicle that doesn't show that this building somehow was inherently less there was the same argument already was that it was a flimsy building with a very limited brain i believe it was and again all the core in brady and knowledge what the building was made out of they said that doesn't inherently show an increased risk there was no evidence and great as there's no evidence in this case that there was that increased risk because of the structural integrity of the building so again we respectfully submit that the commission in circuit court decisions should be overturned and the which concluded that there was snow accident which arose out of the employment those findings should be this case is won in which the facts are not in dispute but the inference is drawn from those facts are in dispute therefore this is a case which must be decided on a  where the facts are subject to more than one inference it is not a case to be heard to know well it is a case to be heard on a manifest weight basis the findings and the inferences from the facts made by the industrial commission subject and entitle to deference to review court will not set those findings aside so that we do it's own judgment unless the findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence the engine outside the store she testified that she wondered what he was up to but she had to stand in the spot by the register of the public is not allowed because the cash register was not cashed out she was waiting on customers she cash register in a business you're never going to leave without it and it with customers and there are you the she does leave the cash register she testified as long as there's not somebody who they're going to bring work and she would have been somewhere else in the store doing other things as she did and this is a situation that is different from brady there's no indication in the brady case that the draftsman heard the vehicle coming or that he had to stand by the drafting table despite knowing something was happening outside in this case she was subject to additional risk as the commission found through a series of factories involving the windows involving the fact this was with a livery guy involving the fact that she had to stand accident he was not going to the store wasn't he was on the premises when she got her he was driving down ninety fifth night and she got her he returned to the premises in his vehicle through and go through the increased risk because of where she had to stand in store in the fact that she could not leave the register because not just because it had commission but because it was physically old oak those reason i asked that the commission's  to a couple of points that were just interest if i look at the briefs submitted by the plaintiff in this piece argument is the argument is that the decision of the workers compensation mission circuit court was correct as a matter of law i don't see that he argued it the question of the standard of review to be realized in this case even if we were to say that we would look at this as a manifest wake case he's pacifically said himself that the inferences drawn on the facts that's asking us to assume facts that are not in evidence if we are to imply that the windows  somehow less structurally sound than any other building and that created the increased risk that's relying on the fact that not in evidence he points to the fact that there was testimony that she heard this car in that she was at her register because it was not cashed out on what to anticipate that ninety fifth street has a lot of traffic and there would probably be a lot of traffic noise so you simply state that she heard a car revving its engine somewhere you know we're looking at hypotheticals that she could have been elsewhere in the store that's not what the commission and the circuit court relied on here their decision states that it was the proximity to the orange glass windows which were adjacent to the parking area and again i said that it was not a parking area where vehicles were expected to be but their decision states that that is why they found an increased risk not all of these other facts that we thrown out there as to what she heard or didn't hear where she may or may not have ben and what this driver was or wasn't doing at the store to speak to your point just once and the delivery person had been at the store to give up and he had left the police report shows that he pulled up to ninety fifth street lost control and came back into the property and then i guess we could say really entered through the window he had left the business wasn't going to get it right his business with ninety first street ha in that area i don't recall whether they were up against the on the sidewalk if you look at the pictures that are submitted there is a concrete parking st the end of it this area but then on the right side of this photo in this is in counsel's brief we see that that asphalt area there's change the height right right there beside i don't believe that there were any facts and i didn't evidence that showed that this was a dangerous area but the petitioner never testified she'd been working in the store for several years she never testified that anybody else struck the front of the building before that there were accidents in this inferences based upon what we know of general parking areas and stores but to infer that that somehow creates a greater risk asks us to assume evidence that was not submitted in this case