and we would also suggest that it would be compensable under the good samaritan doctrine or the traveling employee doctor with regard to the personal comfort doctrine if the employee is performing acts reasonably necessary to personal yes this is happened before at work and we've done this at work before and the supervisor was also aware that there were people problems that day so there is unequivocal testimony that i think disputed by the petitioner saying yeah we worked on this car before  the record was cold and that's why his car didn't start that morning and why it was late for work and so i'm sure it was cold i mean i think that's extrapolating obviously but that testimony was that this particular man's car mr green didn't start that morning he was a field case asking someone to help them start the car the courts already found that that would be reasonable if the carpet started in this particular job but that they did it or they knew the car was having problems that day so i would submit that the personal comfort doctrine does apply and i would also submit that the commission's reasoning first of all under this doctrine they don't and there are in their order they don't even address neither does the circuit court don't even address the all state all steel case even though that was argued friday at petitioner at all the stages it was never addressed by any court as to why that case wouldn't control analogize the circuit city case and said well this wasn't for his own personal time in the circuit city case he was helping another employee get his bag of chips there was no indication that he needed back chips in this case i think it's pretty clear that that's not really a basis work we help each other out this has happened before this is reasonable to see evolve and we're in a situation where my coworker needs help and so just like in the all steel case where they said it would be reasonable forseeable for someone to go in and make a call or go in and ask a fellow employee to help jump staying there walking to a place or using an ever t doing is unreasonable or on pursuit of all according to the case beyond according to the facts of this additional money that the commission specifically are very specifically found that there was no evidence in the record that was found it had knowledge of them jumpstarting each other's vehicles which is testified he knew that they had car trouble i don't know though how i can write it off so i believe that the findings of the commission specifically with regard to that the employer had no employer's that cycle was required to travel away from that and then to the traveling employee doctor and this would be something that would be required him to leave and eat and transportation problems again would be covered under that  several years i believe and this is my third one so i don't intend to misidentify i'm wrong but he had been on this job site three or four months doing concrete work and that this was not employer compassed so i believe that would support that he's a traveling employee people have to go once why isn't this person a complete post the sink was not a personal stock i think this is not a personal comfort case in large part because there is positively no connection to the employer at all i think the majority of your sensible whether the person confort it probably would if you were having lunch but in this instance of course once again the element that caused the injury has no connection to the employer the car courtly injury has that be in some way connected to or related to the employers that it was i think it to the employer or somehow to the employment now the words where you are possibly even the lower the the the thing that caused the injury the chair the car the best something so the serving and i think that those elements in this case are complete there is no connection to the employment or to the employer say of the incident occurred he's off the clock and he's back on the premises of him what if he's not only premises of the employer he's not even frankly on the little jobs side if they were cement if they were torn concrete in that area it was a parking lot you know that was at least some the clock i think it i think it brings it closer your honor but not i'm not certain that even under these circumstances if he is off the premises not on just saying is he's not in the course of employment i'm sorry he's not in the