it's our position before you today that the commission's finding that the plaintiff's accident did not arise out of an in the course of his employment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and should not have been reversed by the circuit court it's well settled that for traveling employees injury to arise out of in the course of his employment the conduct at the time of the injury must be both reasonable and foreseeable by the employer this is a question of fact in the commission and instead of reviewing the decision to determine if there was sufficient factual evidence to support finding the circuit court rejected in disregard of the inferences made by the commission and instead drew its own inverse now we believe that there is more than sufficient factual evidence in this case to support the commission's determination that plaintiff's actions were not reason one forseeable it's clear from the testimony in arbitration both from the plaintiff in from his supervisor mr jeffrey stringer that at no time was the point if ever specifically instructed or told to make any repairs to the dry wall at the defendant's least station house at any time during the four month period between when the hole was created and between the date of the ac was specifically instructed by his supervisor jeffrey stringer on the day of the accident to return to the defendant's station house after making a drop at the house this testimony by mr station house for maintenance on the vehicle after the drop of the hospital now instead of doing this kind of stuff at his house and got drywall materials when they're testing on the record that the paramedics we can leave stuff off of the house sometimes on the way the case i think because the plaintiff had specific instructions from his boss to go from point a to point b and he didn't do and you know anybody that's that has an os has to follow rules and instructions and in this state the plaintiff had an instruction to do something and he didn't do it and it's our position that an employee is disregarding the failure to obey a specific instruction from a supervisor cannot be found to be see out of that course so the boss says i want you to go right on the job sites to the station house and do not stop off at your house that was and that was not his testimony his testimony was just go from point a to point b and instead there's no evidence in the record that point  this deviation reasonable for c i think it hinges on the instruction that he received from his boss were to go simple which again was to go down to the station house to perform a dance on the vehicle after the hospital and that according to the i think on the flip side he could have also said ok i'm going to stop home real quick and then will be there since there was an instruction to go somewhere for a specific purpose not only go from the hospital back to the station house but that of the station master before me and so i think what we're saying is  statement that he was going to deviate i think it doesn't matter where he was going whether it be to home or to the drug store if you would have said all right boss you say go from point a to point b but but i'm going to stop off first there's no evidence that what you're saying here it sounds like you're not putting forth much of an argument the commission seemed to has latched on to which was the reason for needing to stop by the house to pick up these repair materials the claimant himself that caused the damage to the wall do you agree that that's not relevant to the analysis here and no i think that is relevant to the analysis here and what the commissioner wyden on in support of their finding was hotline which i think is this almost directly on point to what we have here today and that case simply was injured when she went to go buy pens and seating for a meeting at her absolutely absolutely i mean i think it's reason forseeable for your employees to follow your directions and when they don't do that i don't think that's reasonable seeable and i don't think that he'd turn to the  was there for four months that you know he had done a different shift at this facility and then came back to this facility the still there people were given a lot of time and so when the supervisor or the supervisor or his coach bone came up to him and looked at the hole he told them him i'm going to get it fixed i promise i'll fix to make these stops that's justified by plaintiff it's testified by mr stringer they can make stops to get lunch to get medicine to even pick up things supplies for the station in this case he made a staff that that we there's no way to this testimony about returning the vehicle he didn't include it in his opinion didn't seem to either give it any kind of weight that this was something that was a direct and obvious  policy and therefore he should be entitled to guess and based on their standard on current policy i'm not sure that even if he were directly told to come back immediately to the station that it would be completely unreasonable around for  than a tenth of a mile from his direct route back to the station would have taken two minutes or under two minutes had he not fallen in broke his ankle also this is a very clearly and undercuts would be an insubstantial deviation for which at the time that he felt he was also partner at the time at the time any specific instructions on where to go after making the drop off this is advising that once they cleared from the call they were to report to our main office to do their vehicle maintenance clean their vehicle and shifts but the test the testimony in this case is to the contrary that they had specific instructions up and he could not based on that instruction i don't think you can reasonably forseen to him for him to have been in his driveway at that time i think he was to be from point a to point b there's no need to stop at home to pick up drywall we didn't bust it the day before was four months prior nobody ever asked him to fix it in fact when he came back from his injury i think in june of that year so four months after the accident i