important facts and some of the facts the defendants curiously omitted for the last over and in some instances revised on the day of this occurrence mr home births well as dozens of other boys of hamilton which is to remove all that equipment and taken away and just as the other folks who brought materials or things to the park for the event mr mr hoover did the same thing we had some of them brought cakes brought her moved some who brought  until that company more profitable perfectly reasonable goal but they can't escape my ability by denying that what happened there was within the scope of the employment just because people were impressed kurds drinking at a tea partier well let's let's talk about corner effectively ruled the search engine defectively rule as a matter of law that the facts that we presented in our proposed minute point were insufficient to state claim i don't think that's the right time to make that ruling i think we should be granted and million under he thought existed that he thought existed he could be disciplined and if i find it important to note that the defense were glossed over this idea of whether there really was a rule that required her to be cleared  but there's plenty of evidence that in fact that was what the employees thought that was rule mr spanier who was the top employee at this event testified that there are rules for the part and he said whatever the rules were he wanted employees to comply expect them to  holder himself testified that he was required to report comply with all the rules of the point when he was at the park and when he was at the main facility here's a street he also said it was not an option to leave his belongings our pursuit of his employer's interests he's breaking with equipment for the employer to use he uses the equipment they use the equipment and consistent with the rules he gives it all out in the course of completing that part of employee would have been in the scope of his employment with regard to that test which was he was taking a test in those remote location during a traffic incident there are two in other words there had elgin does he make a detour way takes one of these fact routes so for our purposes this timing isn't particularly helpful but let me go one step further the court recognizes that there was an exception to the general rule the employees to travel to and from work outside of the working actually working hours are not in the scope of the employer and where the employees are caused by their lawyer this is the language of the court to travel away from a regular work place or with travel is at least partly for the employees purposes rather than simply serving to convey the employees to were thrown in regular jobs i found it and i think that's a decision that the court can make that certainly wasn't contested in any point below it was accepted i think by both sides of this is a place that regularly is distance from the actual home side of this particular park is only a few miles away from the rockford facility that is to offer normally more than as opposed to if you look at the plan in case he was suspect to whether this is a regular work site i think the record is clear but i'll give tirana that could be considered for the moment a fact question i don't think however the court below which are not controlled by the corporations so the record doesn't show it's a disclosure that kind of an idea or something else it is not ok is it me you guys have one very clear point of distinction your position which is made very clear is this definition of the different non rigid place of employer would cannot include other facilities owned by the company as a general proposition his position is irregular push the quote is where you are employees and if you as an employe he was getting paid mileage and everything else they said he was not acting within the scope of employment when he ran his car and some of our guys to harbor isn't getting paid a thing and in one of the distinctions i think is worth making with respect  he's driving home the employer substrate has absolutely no control over him he looks like any other and this is important charlie looks like any other person driving his or her car he could go home and he could condo constitute a breach of duty they knew he was drunk they knew that they were going to have a public at risk one name poor mister and they poured the driver into his car gentleness club actually put the driver in the driver's seat but they had to take the guy who they know knew was intoxicated put him in their car and risk the lives of people on the street in this case number one there is no evidence that anyone knew that mr harper had been over served there was nothing at all to suggest that in the aftermath secondly the assistance  him told him get out of the park we've had too much to drink he was allowed up on the cell some fairly sensitive audio equipment had no problem doing that been allowed to leave without the question without issue employer earth it's it's also a place where they do have picnics and where people can have weddings and events if you're employed by the company so i don't i don't think that it's a foregone conclusion i would dispute that this is a regular place