Home/Wisconsin Supreme Court/Kucksdorf v. Industrial Commission

Kucksdorf v. Industrial Commission

37 N.W.2d 791, 254 Wis. 570, 1949 Wisc. LEXIS 262
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided March 11, 1949·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Rosenberry, C. J.

It is the contention of the appellant that where a sawmill operator has a guard that the Industrial Commission has O.K.’d as satisfactory and where after he had built a new mill and so advised the commission and requested them in writing to make an inspection, it is unreasonable on the part of the commission to find and hold that the guard as approved by the representative of the commission on the prior inspection is now inadequate because a new type guard or slasher swing saw of which the employer had no knowledge, was available.

We fail to find in the record any evidence that the particular type of guard used by the employer had been inspected and approved by a representative of the commission.

The employer testified that this same slasher saw was used in a shingle mill prior to the time that it was set up in the lath mill, and that it operated the same in the lath mill as it did

*572

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

Kucksdorf v. Industrial Commission, 37 N.W.2d 791, 254 Wis. 570, 1949 Wisc. LEXIS 262 (Wis. 1949).

37 N.W.2d 791 (Kucksdorf v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Connor Lumber & Land Co. v. Industrial Commission
94 N.W.2d 145 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1959)
Hipke v. Industrial Commission
52 N.W.2d 401 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1952)