only one inference and so the standard overview is to know as this court is well aware that an accident arises out of the employment if the employees are exposed to a risk distinctly related to her point or she is exposed to a common risk to a greater extent or more frequently than the general public in this case the claimant was exposed to a wrist distinctly related to her  defective mat in the lobby of her office the only way for the claimant to get to and from work was to go through the lobby of one eighty north the south the claimant's unconscious the testimony was that sometimes they were met present in the lobby and sometimes there were no match present in the lobby on the day were accident there were mats that mat had up a bump in it which caused her to trip and fall and injure herself because of this defect in this access route to and from her work there was a special hazard in that usual route and sure her accident arose out of even if the risk is to be viewed as a neutral risk the claimant's accident still rose out of her employment because she was exposed to that risk more often than the general public more frequently the gym than the general public would be exposed to it again it was unconscious dictated that these mats were not always present as an employee in the building the claimant had to go through the lobby more often than members of the general public obviously members of the general public don't have to go through the lobby at all she was forced would have to go through the lobby certainly but at as an employee in the building i guess that means that general public has the option of whether to go into the building or not she doesn't because the mats were not lobby more frequently than the general public she's more likely to be exposed to that risk i want to talk just for a moment about a bit illinois bell decision obviously the employer relies very heavily on it area that all employees are going to go through whereas in this case the lobbies in area that all lawyers are going to go through also in illinois bell there wasn't truly a hazard the fact that the employee  and she testified that the floor was baxter slippery there was no evidence as to whether that was always the case whether that was a special case at this point here we have a different situation we've got a defect on the premises a bump in court to find that a slip and fall in a public lobby not controlled by the employer is a compatible claim under the on line workers compensation and it's not the decision of the circuit board and the workers compensation retail temple there's a coffee shop is down which sap a tailor a dentist there is no dispute that the player did not own nor maintain the lobby the lease agreement which is part of the record supports the office of the not just bomb or each other they must enter the premises using the door that was located in the back alley when bomber retail came into work and came through that door in the go in the building from there is three revolving doors down street there is one door on lake street there is a door from the parking lot the attached parking lot into the building there's also a door from starbucks and building i think the difference is in what we don't have redone is the employee task of idaho needs to have a look how did she decide what door to go in and what door to go out and it just depends on where she was coming from and where she was going to and that's how she decided what door to enter the employer it is a non but that doesn't make the case compensable and the claim incites not only bama rito but he cites litchfield in chicago tribune all those cases are clearly distinguishable from our case here today  like we talked about in palm retold the employee was required to use the alabama lawyer told her that where she had to enter the building we have no such requirement in arcade's council sledge phillips field kaseman in the litchfield facts are this field is a health care provider and the employee was a nurse's aide and she came into work and then she had to leave to go to her car to to get something that she needed for work and she s but the courts sat that because the employer only maintained the sidewalk and the sidewalk clearly had a defect one side was raised higher than the other the court found that the claim compatible because the employer o maintained that on even sidewalk they they had control over the defect we don't have that in this case the law firm do not control what goes on in the out lobby is considered a common area and the other case they cited was chicago tribune and chicago tribune the claimant foul in what was described in the decision as a like a museum in the chicago tribune building trades to and visited by will general again the difference in our case and in this case is she found a common lobby area belong from did not own or control it the employer didn't how the claimant is my homie you have to could use it and the door that she chose to in grass and rest from the building depending on where she was coming from and where she was going to be compatible under the oh my worker's compensation and an injury m arise out of employment and in the course of employment the claimant in mahoney failed to prove both of the promise of a test have been that she failed to prove that the accident arose out of time for him and because she was not exposed to risk greater than the general public she was of it exposed to the same risk as somebody going to the sandwich shop to get a stammering fan which somebody's going to starbucks to get coffee somebody going into the little shop to buy the magazine in a candy bar something unfortunately going to get a root canal the dentist or somebody's going to get their hands that's the same risk as the general public and there is nothing inherent in that lobbying that made it more hazardous for him is mahoney under any standard whether p manifest weight of the evidence or do you know this claim is not true handsful i asked the score to come to the only decision that is possible which is to mind that the claimant did not sustain a compensable accident under the all my workers compensation act thank you very much for your time and had no consistency on what exit she used i think she said that she'd only use that specific exit twenty times and there's no real central access point i mean that's a much bigger area where not all employees are are going to c and as a result the the accident arose out of the employment i believe that the arbitrator got this case correct the commission is in error and unless there's any other questions i would ask that you reverse the