Legal Opinion

Monroe County v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

The sole question presented is whether the employee was performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment at the time of the accident, within the meaning of sec. 102.03, Stats. It has been held that employees are performing services growing out of and incidental to their employment when they are injured while going for a drink of water (Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm. 180 Wis. 179, 192 N. W. 449); while going to a toilet during the lunch hour (Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635, 150 N. W. 998); while eating a lunch during the noon hour (Racine Rubber Co.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Holt Lumber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  3. John H. Kaiser Lumber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Clem v. Chalmers Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. American Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Desautel v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Caravella v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  4. City of Milwaukee v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Cardillo v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940

3 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