Legal Opinion · Dissent

International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1914Published

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge. Ernest Koenig, an employee of the plaintiff, was injured on March 5, 1912, by reason of a particle of. steel entering one of his eyes. The piece of steel was removed by a magnet, hut the employee was incapacitated from working for a considerable length of time. He was paid for his loss of time while unable to work, and doctors’ bills, as provided in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge. Ernest Koenig, an employee of the plaintiff, was injured on March 5, 1912, by reason of a particle of. steel entering one of his eyes. The piece of steel was removed by a magnet, hut the employee was incapacitated from working for a considerable length of time. He was paid for his loss of time while unable to work, and doctors’ bills, as provided in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The sight of the eye was not destroyed, but it was materially impaired, and the employee instituted this proceeding against…

1DissentTiMLiN, J.

I am unable to agree with the majority decision in this case. It proceeds, first, upon the erroneous assumption that there was no evidence of future disability in the case except that derived from the books, pamphlets, and documents consulted by the Commission, the use of which is disapproved; second, upon the erroneous assumption that these were necessarily consulted as original evidence; and third, upon the erroneous view that orders of the Commission can be reversed for improper admission of evidence. It was in evidence that the claimant lost an eye, and in the exercise of common knowledge…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ekern v. McGovernWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  2. City of Chicago v. MajorIllinois Supreme Court · 1857
  3. Block v. Milwaukee Street Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
  4. City of Chicago v. ScholtenIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Rosenkranz v. Lindell Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891

6 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