Where  the  premises  are  confined  to  a  single  building
or  plant  or  inclosure,  it  is  usually  held  that  the  ac-
cident occurring  on  the  premises  arises  out  of  and
in  the  course  of  the  employment,  but  when  the  acci-
dent occurs  on  the  right-of-way  of  a  railroad  which
extends  for  miles  it  is  more  difficult  to  decide.    Wa~
basli  Hy.  Co.  v.  Industrial  Commission,  294  111.  119,
123;  128  N.  E.  290.
91  The  question  of  whether  an  employee  is  permitted
to  ride  free  on  the  trains  of  his  master  is  not  con-
trolling where  the  employee  was  injured  on  the  way


92  SEC.  1— SCOPE  OF  EMPLOYMENT

to  take  the  train  in  question.  Wabash  Ey.  Co.  v.
Industrial  Commission,  294  111.  119,  126;  128  N.  E.
290.
90  If  the  employee  receives  an  injury  in  the  act  of
violating  an  instruction  of  his  employer,  by  which
violation  he  is  taken  outside  of  the  scope  of  his  em-
ployment, the  injury  does  not  arise  out  of  the  em-
ployment. (Nelson  Const.  Co.  v.  Industrial  Commis-
sion, 286  111.  632;  United  Disposal  Co.  v.  Industrial
Commission,  291  111.  480.)  Rockford  Cabinet  Co.  v.
Industrial  Commission,  295  HI.  332,  336;  129  N.  E.
142.
90  The  controlling  factor  in  determining  whether  the
employee  is  in  the  course  of  his  employment  is
whether  the  employee  at  the  time  of  the  accident
was  within  the  orbit,  area,  scope  or  sphere  of  the
employment.  Wabash  Railway  Co.  v.  Industrial  Com-
mission, 294  111.  119,  122;  128  N.  E.  290.
90  Where  an  employee  is  shown  to  be  outside  of  the
scope  of  his  employment,  the  Commission  has  no
jurisdiction  to  make  an  award.  West  Side  Coal  &
Mining  Co.  v.  Industrial  Commission,  291  111.  301;
126  N.  E.  218.
