Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission

221 N.W. 396, 197 Wis. 48, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 320
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 9, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 221 N.W. 396 (Northwestern Fuel 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
Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 221 N.W. 396, 197 Wis. 48, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 320 (Wis. 1928).

Opinion

Eschweiler, J.

Appellant’s attack upon the award of compensation by the Industrial Commission to Swanson is that their finding in effect is that Swanson was at the time on the premises of his employer, the plaintiff.

The statutory provision involved, sec. 102.03 (2), reads: . . 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 evidence before the Industrial Commission warrants a conclusion that this northeasterly extension of Hill avenue was encroached upon to a large extent by plaintiff and almost entirely devoted to its exclusive use except as it was crossed by the railroad tracks; the plaintiff largely if not entirely kept it in repair and furnished all the material for repairs; it was its recognized way for employees to come and go'to the other portion of its premises; it recognized in its use thereof no distinction between the small strip where the accident occurred, the fee of which happened to be in another, and the rest of that short extension of Hill avenue. It treated it for all practical purposes as its premises. Though nominally a public highway dedicated to public uses, plaintiff used it as part or parcel of its premises, just as though it had the fee title to all as in fact it had except for the narrow strip opposite where the injury happened.

We are constrained to hold that the term “premises of his employer” as used in this statute should not be construed to be limited to the soil over which he has legal dominion or title, but to that which he uses, to all intents and purposes, as his premises.

Under the controlling facts as here presented we think the judgment below affirming the award was correct.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Halama v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations
179 N.W.2d 784 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)
Frisbie v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations
172 N.W.2d 346 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1969)
Hunt v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company
445 S.W.2d 400 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1969)
Beckerman v. Owosso Mfg. Co.
350 S.W.2d 321 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1961)
Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts, Inc.
95 N.W.2d 778 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1959)
State v. Industrial Commission
90 N.W.2d 397 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1958)
Jaynes v. Potlatch Forests, Inc.
271 P.2d 1016 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1954)
Dinsmore's Case
62 A.2d 205 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1948)
Grady v. Nevins Church Press Co.
189 A. 668 (New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 1936)
City of Milwaukee v. Industrial Commission
261 N.W. 206 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
Babl v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.
261 N.W. 292 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)
Gunderson v. Industrial Commission
260 N.W. 636 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
Barnett v. Britling Cafeteria Co.
143 So. 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Krebs v. Industrial Commission
227 N.W. 287 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 N.W. 396, 197 Wis. 48, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwestern-fuel-co-v-industrial-commission-wis-1928.