Legal Opinion

Bergner v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1968PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

The sole question in this case is: At the time of the fatal injury, was the deceased performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment ?

Answering that question begins with the statutory provision under which the application for death benefits was brought. Sec. 102.03 (1), Stats., provides:

“Liability under this chapter shall exist against an employer only where the following conditions concur:
“ (c) 1. Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment. . . .
“ (f) Every employee whose employment requires him to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Fitz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Schmiedeke v. Four Wheel Drive Auto Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Van Valin v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Racine County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dibble v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  3. City of Santa Fe v. HernandezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Village of Hilbert v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. City of Santa Fe v. HernandezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API