the question here is how dodson was applied and whether or not the application of dobson to this case was correct this is there are facts that are  testified to which are not disputed and the commission is entirely right in finding facts because that was the commission's role here what the commission did incorrectly was the commission applied the datsun standard when the datsun standard addresses a different situation the datsun standard address the situation where an employee punches out is leaving work for the day is entirely done and takes an unsafe path to her own vehicle here the petitioner is on the job the petitioner is not leaving the building for her own benefit in fact she didn't want to leave the building at all but she had to she had to go out to her car to get the codes up to some he's on the job i think you fairly convinced me that she has this distinguished that but if you look at all these cases ok the employer did not require her to her which you park actually she parked in designated parking area that she chose to conquer a vehicle in the repair correct as was the designated parking area for ito that case did not involve a situation where claimant quote unquote freely chose to use a certain they have and was injured in doing so can we seriously dispute that there isn't any scintilla of hint that the employer told the claimant to scale the retaining wall he did a completely voluntarily right correct that the employee chose to step up that retaining wall scaled the retaining wall your honor i would disagree with that particular phrase ology i believe that that say more than it is we're talking about in our opinion a twelve inch lift the suit was six inches ok that wasn't the only path to get back into the building was in no way was a shortcut that she chose correct correct which by her test y was actually the safer route given the temperature that day and she felt she was exposed to greater risk by taking the hundred steps rather than the twenty five steps can you explain that well isn't the best safer route honor i understand then i certainly appreciated the commissioner mason adding that to her the sense to the commission and i think as i told now since day to day's a good day to argue that fucking outside in the cold is  is that if she's outside longer in this cold she's expose yourself to greater risk of becoming ill too great a risk of not being able to pin employers from well she can't work then it becomes the employer's problem it earth decision to scale jump walk your fully up retaining wall was a voluntary exposure to a risk that she decided to encounter correct why we would agree that it was a voluntary choice to take that path and it has nothing wallet was completely voluntary unrelated to any directions or requirements of the yes yes your yes your honor she could agree on that yes we can absolutely agree that she is the one who chose that path and what you want to say is that you haven't taken  their benefit at the employer i want to say both that it did benefit the employer it benefited the employee by her getting back faster because remember she's been called in early so that her coworker could leave ok and just following up on that so if instead of are for the very simple reason those actions strike one as much more dangerous than simply stepping up to twelve in the normal would be within hours of any time the employee leaves the premises for a legitimate purpose anything goes as to how they get back into the building even if they have to pull all over some walls ok no i ask you to apply the standard that datsun used which was that to be sure employees are free to choose any that argument if we understand you are out we would also add i guess that as a matter of public policy we don't think that it's a good standard to have the petitioner guessing every time whether or not this is a safe route if it's a route that she's used repeatedly it's clearly safe she's done this hundreds of times so we just would suggest that anytime there is a safe route that that that is because the court my name is steve nelson and i represent true to express in this case i would point out that it wasn't necessary for this individual to travel the road she did that result injury if you were the photographs there's a nice truck route sidewalk right on the bill olding her steps in the parking lot where she parked her car that's the route she entered when she came to work the day she was injured  she took was her for her convenience she said that she didn't because it was cold but one can surmise that it was just as cold when she came to work because when she went to the car to get her badge and past  days when she came to work she came in to say pay off when she went out to work harder in this cold weather she took the gun safe if you look at the photographs there's a grassy slope outside the door she crosses crossed property that is not is not rented by my client she goes into the parking lot she comes back the same way she climbs this retaining wall whether it's well inches or eighteen inches and she twists or knee and i don't think that there was a while sort of to be compensated for this risk that she took in going to work hard coming back to