Under either approach, an injury does not arise out of the employment if it was caused by some hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed notwithstanding his employment. Orsini, 117 Ill.2d at 45; Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill.App.3d 900, 902 (1993).         Generally, injuries incurred while traveling to or from the work place are not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment.

In order to establish that her injuries arose out of her employment, it is necessary for the claimant to establish a causal connection between her employment and her current condition of ill-being. Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill. App. 3d 900, 902 (1993). The claimant need not establish that her employment was the sole cause, or even the primary cause; it is sufficient that she can establish that her employment was a causative factor in her ensuring injuries.

Second, accidental injuries sustained in a parking lot either owned or controlled by an employer within a reasonable time before or after work are generally deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment, especially when the claimant's injury was sustained as a result of the condition of employer's premises. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 91 Ill.2d 210, 215-16, 62 Ill.Dec. 921, 437 N.E.2d 609, 610-11 (1982); Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill.App.3d 900, 902, 193 Ill.Dec. 201, 626 N.E.2d 234, 236 (1993). Claimant's car was parked in the area where employees were requested to park.

As with all fact questions, where the facts are not in dispute and give rise to only one inference, the question becomes one of law, and the Commission's decision is subject to de novo review. Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 626 N.E.2d 234 (1993). Where the evidence gives rise to more than one inference, however, the question remains one of fact and the Commission's determination is accorded great deference.

In order for accidental injuries to be compensable under the Act, a claimant must show such injuries arose out of and in the course of his or her employment. Nabisco, 266 Ill. App.3d at 1106; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm'n., 129 Ill.2d 52, 57 (1989); Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n., 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 902 (1993). For an injury to arise out of one's employment, it must have an origin in some risk connected with or incidental to the employment so that there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Nabisco, 266 Ill. App.3d at 1106; Lubin, 200 Ill. App.3d at 435.

Illinois cases cite to the general public, not to a locality, neighborhood, or area. See Brady, 143 Ill.2d 542; Caterpillar Tractor Co., 129 Ill.2d at 58-59; Campbell "66" Express, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 83 Ill.2d 353, 355-57 (1980); Eisenberg v. Industrial Comm'n, 65 Ill.2d 232, 234 (1976); American Freight Forwarding Corp. v. Industrial Common, 31 Ill.2d 293, 295 (1964); Scott v. Industrial Comm'n, 374 Ill. 225, 230 (1940); Springfield School District No. 186 v. Industrial Comm'n, 293 Ill. App.3d 226, 229 (1997); Fligelman v. City of Chicago, 275 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1092, 1094 (1995); Metropolitan Water Reclamation District v. Industrial Comm'n, 272 Ill. App.3d 732, 736 (1995); Pryor v. Industrial Comm'n, 266 Ill. App.3d 497, 499 (1994); Kemp v. Industrial Comm'n, 264 Ill. App.3d 1108, 1109, 1111 (1994); Cassens Transport Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 262 Ill. App.3d 324, 331 (1994); Heath v. Industrial Comm'n, 256 Ill. App.3d 1008, 1013, 1015 (1993); Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 902-03 (1993); Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Industrial Comm'n, 258 Ill. App.3d 768, 772(1994); Komatsu Dresser Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 235 Ill. App.3d 779, 787-88 (1992); Best Foods v. Industrial Comm'n, 231 Ill. App.3d 1066, 1069 (1992); County of Cook v. Industrial Comm'n, 165 Ill. App.3d 1005, 1009-10 (1988); Holthaus v. Industrial Comm'n, 127 Ill. App.3d 732, 736-37 (1984). See also C.A. Dunham Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 16 Ill.2d 102, 104-05 (1959) ("[w]hile it was originally stated that [the] risk [of injury] must be peculiar to the work, and not connected with the neighborhood, the concept was expanded so that even if the general public is also exposed to the risk, if the employee, by reason of his employment, is exposed to such risk to a greater degree, the accident is said to arise out of his employment").

Caterpillar Tractor Co., 129 Ill.2d at 58; Orsini, 117 Ill.2d at 45. Under either inquiry, however, an injury does not arise out of the employment if it was caused by some hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed notwithstanding his employment. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 129 Ill.2d at 59; Orsini, 117 Ill.2d at 45; Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n, 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 902 (1993); Esco Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 169 Ill. App.3d 376, 383 (1988). Consequently, for a heart attack to arise out of one's employment, the work must create a higher degree of physical or emotional stress as compared to stress attendant to normal daily activities.

" Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1982), 91 Ill.2d 210, 215-16, 437 N.E.2d 609. Thus, appellate courts have held that workers' compensation covers parking lot accidents caused in part by ice or other slippery substances on the lot ( Hiram Walker Sons, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n. (1968), 41 Ill.2d 429, 244 N.E.2d 179; American Electric Cordsets v. Industrial Comm'n (1990), 198 Ill. App.3d 87, 555 N.E.2d 823), the slope of the lot ( Material Service Corp., Division of General Dynamics v. Industrial Comm'n (1973), 53 Ill.2d 429, 434, 292 N.E.2d 367), the layout of the lot ( Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n (1993), 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 903, 626 N.E.2d 234), traffic congestion in the lot ( Chmelik v. Vana (1964), 31 Ill.2d 272, 280, 201 N.E.2d 434), or a criminal assault in the lot ( County of Cook, 165 Ill. App.3d at 1010). We find that the dilapidated bridge over the parking lot similarly created a hazardous condition in the work premises, and therefore the injury arose out of the employment.

( Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Industrial Comm'n (1969), 44 Ill.2d 207, 214, 254 N.E.2d 522, 526; Hansel Gretel Day Care Center v. Industrial Comm'n (1991), 215 Ill. App.3d 284, 294, 574 N.E.2d 1244, 1251.) In order for accidental injuries to be compensable under the Act, a claimant must show such injuries arose out of and in the course of his or her employment. ( Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1989), 129 Ill.2d 52, 57, 541 N.E.2d 665, 667; Hammel v. Industrial Comm'n (1993), 253 Ill. App.3d 900, 902, 626 N.E.2d 234, 236; Lubin Management Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1990), 200 Ill. App.3d 432, 435, 558 N.E.2d 189, 191.) For an injury to arise out of one's employment, it must have an origin in some risk connected with or incidental to the employment so that there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury.