Legal Opinion

Western Fruit Co. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1931PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

Under our statute, sec. 102.03, for liability to exist it is essential that “at the time of the accident the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment.” It is especially provided that while going to and from work in the usual way “while on the premises of the employer,” an employee shall be deemed within the statute. -This implies that while so going an employee is not within the statute unless he is on the employer’s premises, except the going to or from work can under the circumstances be considered as “performing service growing out of and incidental to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Donovan's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  2. Claim of Kowalek v. New York Consolidated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  3. Tesch v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Mead Bros. v. State Industrial Com.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  5. Rock County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Githens v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Olson Rug Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Goldsworthy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Selmer Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

5 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