Matayo v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
The parties agree that “if the employer be under obligation to transport an employee to and from work, the employee is entitled to compensation if injured while being so transported.” Githens v. Industrial Comm. (1936), 220 Wis. 658, 662, 265 N. W. 662. The Industrial Commission contends that it was entitled to draw the inference that there was no contract whereby Ohlson was obliged to transport Matayo back to Rhinelander. It is true that there was a conflict in the testimony as to Matayo’s claim that Ohlson agreed to bring Matayo back to Rhinelander every two weeks. Ohlson did not remember…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Berg v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Rock County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- State v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Githens v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Goldsworthy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fitz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Ace Refrigeration & Heating Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Falke v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Vasquez v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968