Legal Opinion

Matayo v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1958PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Berg v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Rock County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  3. State v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Githens v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Goldsworthy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fitz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Ace Refrigeration & Heating Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Falke v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Vasquez v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API