Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts, Inc.

The defendant first contends that the place where the accident occurred was not a part of the defendant’s place of employment. The point of accident clearly was on the private crossing over the .track of the railway company. The defendant contends that the fact it. may have been allowed by the railway company to construct the crossing over its right of way for the convenience of defendant’s employees and frequenters did not make the main-line track a part of defendant’s place of employment.

The defendant relies upon cases such as Dickson v. Industrial Comm. 261 Wis. 65, 51 N. W. (2d) 553, and…