Legal Opinion
Githens v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided March 3, 1936PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The statute, sec. 102.03, provides in part:
“(1) Liability under this chapter shall exist against an employer only where the following conditions concur: . . .
“(c) Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment. Every employee going to and from his employment in the ordinary and usual way, while on the premises of his employer, shall be deemed to be performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment. ...”
The appellant contends that at the time of the accident he was performing services growing out of and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Voehl v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Barragar v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- McKesson-Fuller-Morrisson Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Rock County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Eckhardt v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Peterman v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Voswinkel v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Horvath v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Kerin v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.