Legal Opinion

American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1962PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

Sec. 102.03 (1) (c), Stats., provides in part:

“Every employee going to and from his employment in the ordinary and usual way, while on the premises of his employer . . . shall be deemed to be performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment; . . .”

It was established without dispute that Mrs. Parkinson was leaving her employment in the ordinary and usual way and the only question raised is whether the parking lot was part of the “premises of [her] employer” for the purpose of the statute. It is clear that the plaintiff owned or otherwise controlled the parking lot and used it…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. International Harvester Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  2. E. W. Hallet Construction Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. State v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Dickson v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  5. State v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  2. Jaeger Baking Co. v. KretschmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Frisbie v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Cmelak v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Jaeger Baking Co. v. KretschmannCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1978

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API