Schmiedeke v. Four Wheel Drive Auto Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.
That the relation of employer and employee between Schmiedeke and the Four Wheel Drive Auto Company existed by reason of the contract of employment, and that both were subject to the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, is conceded.
We take it to be well settled that the risks of automobile travel constitute a hazard growing out of and incidental to the employment of a salesman traveling by automobile. Such is the effect of the holdings in Schroeder & Daly Co. v. Industrial Comm. 169 Wis. 567, 173 N. W. 328, and U. S. Cas. Co. v. Superior H. Co. 175 Wis. 162, 184 N. W. 694, that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SumrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Empire Health & Accident Insurance v. PurcellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921
- Cook's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Industrial Commission v. Pueblo Auto Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Schroeder & Daly Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Barragar v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Irwin-Neisler & Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Murdoch v. Humes SwanstromIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Pohler v. T. W. Snow Construction Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- Wilhelm v. Angell, Wilhelm & ShreveMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.