Illinois Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Illinois Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission

199 N.W. 154, 184 Wis. 273, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 271

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 N.W. 154 (Illinois Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Illinois Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 199 N.W. 154, 184 Wis. 273, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 271 (Wis. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Eschweiler, J.

The award in this case, under the workmen’s compensation act, sub. (4), sec. 102.1 Í, Stats., can only be justified if Mrs. Peterson, the claimant, not a relative by blood or marriage, was a member of the family of the deceased employee, Nelson.

While it may well be that relationship by blood or marr riage is not essential in order that a person claiming as dependent under the statutes here involved may properly be considered a member of the family of the deceased employee and therefore entitled to compensation, as is suggested in Armstrong v. Industrial Comm. 161 Wis. 530, 532, 154 N. W. 844, and as directly held, under substantially the same statutory language, in Peay v. Fred Kulow & Co. 226 Mich. 512, 197 N. W. 1020, nevertheless we must hold that the situation here disclosed is not sufficient to bring the claimant within the proper interpretation of the term “family.”

A family relationship existed in this household between Mrs. Peterson and her two children. As to that family relationship Nelson was a boarder, and though paying more during the last period of his life for his food and lodging than before, it was nevertheless entirely a contract arrangement which might be terminated at any time by either. His staying or going did not or would not have altered'the family of which Mrs. Peterson was a member and the head. The situation here presented is clearly one where Nelson occupied the position of boarder, as the term is generally under[276]*276stood, and where the obligation is purely contractual, rather than one within the narrower circle of the family, as that term is generally understood. We therefore reach the conclusion that there was no such family relationship existing between the deceased employee and the claimant here as to justify the findings and award of the Commission.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the claim. No costs to plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eschweiler, J.

The award in this case, under the workmen’s compensation act, sub. (4), sec. 102.1 Í, Stats., can only be justified if Mrs. Peterson, the claimant, not a relative by blood or marriage, was a member of the family of the deceased employee, Nelson.

While it may well be that relationship by blood or marr riage is not essential in order that a person claiming as dependent under the statutes here involved may properly be considered a member of the family of the deceased employee and therefore entitled to compensation, as is suggested in Armstrong v. Industrial Comm. 161 Wis. 530, 532, 154 N. W. 844, and as directly held, under substantially the same statutory language, in Peay v. Fred Kulow & Co. 226 Mich. 512, 197 N. W. 1020, nevertheless we must hold that the situation here disclosed is not sufficient to bring the claimant within the proper interpretation of the term “family.”

A family relationship existed in this household between Mrs. Peterson and her two children. As to that family relationship Nelson was a boarder, and though paying more during the last period of his life for his food and lodging than before, it was nevertheless entirely a contract arrangement which might be terminated at any time by either. His staying or going did not or would not have altered'the family of which Mrs. Peterson was a member and the head. The situation here presented is clearly one where Nelson occupied the position of boarder, as the term is generally under[276]*276stood, and where the obligation is purely contractual, rather than one within the narrower circle of the family, as that term is generally understood. We therefore reach the conclusion that there was no such family relationship existing between the deceased employee and the claimant here as to justify the findings and award of the Commission.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the claim. No costs to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.W. 154, 184 Wis. 273, 1924 Wisc. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-steel-co-v-industrial-commission-wis-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack