Heileman Brewing Co. v. Schultz

Decision Date04 May 1915
Citation152 N.W. 446,161 Wis. 46
PartiesHEILEMAN BREWING CO. v. SCHULTZ ET AL.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; C. A. Fowler, Judge.

Proceeding by Heileman Brewing Company, employer, against the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and Rosa Schultz, petitioner, for an award of compensation for the death of her husband, F. J. Schultz, employé, to set aside an award of the Commission in favor of petitioner. Judgment for defendants confirming the award, and the employer appeals. Affirmed.

Petition by Rosa Schultz, before the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, for an award of compensation, against the Heileman Brewing Company, for the death of her husband, F. J. Schultz, while in the employ of the brewing company. The Commission made an award in favor of the petitioner, and the brewing company appealed to the circuit court, which court confirmed the award of the Commission.

The deceased, F. J. Schultz, was employed by the Heileman Brewing Company of La Crosse, Wis. At the time of the injury, upon which is based the claim here involved, Schultz was about to engage in varnishing a so-called drum in the cellar of the brewing company. It was the custom to have the drum warm when varnished. When Schultz started work in the morning he opened the drum and undertook to light a gas jet or lamp, which was used for this purpose, and an explosion of gas occurred, which caused first degree burns on his face and hands and singed his eyebrows. Evidently there had been a leakage of gas into the drum during the night. This accident took place upon the 7th day of February, 1914. Immediately after being so injured a physician was called, and Schultz was treated for three or four days, and after such treatments he was advised by the physician that he could return to work. His wife testifies that he complained from the time of the injury that his throat hurt him when he swallowed, and for that reason he refused to drink his beer at the brewery. On March 16th he called the same physician that had treated him for the burns and complained of stomach trouble, and the physician found him in a run-down condition and prescribed for him. On April 6th or 8th he called upon another physician, who diagnosed his case as one of miliary tuberculosis. At this time he was suffering from pains in his chest, and he said that he had suffered ever since the explosion of the gas. He died on June 16th from miliary tuberculosis. Physicians testified that the inhalation of the gas fumes would furnish an opportunity, if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Tomnitz v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited, of London, England
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1938
    ... ... K. C. Pub. Serv ... Co., 322 Mo. 1103, 19 S.W.2d 707; Zeis v. St. L ... Brewing Assn., 205 Mo. 638, 104 S.W. 99. (2) This case ... comes within the coverage of appellant's ... Paper Board Co. v. Lewis, 117 N.E. 276; Heilman ... Brewing Co. v. Schultz, 152 N.W. 446; Aetna Life ... Ins. Co. v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 229 F. 552; ... Rist v ... ...
  • Cook v. Massey
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1923
    ... ... 247; Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v ... Pillsbury, 171 Cal. 53, 151 P. 658; Heileman Brewing ... Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 161 Wis. 46, 152 N.W. 446; ... Buckley's Case, 218 ... ...
  • Princess House, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations of State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1983
    ...the commission did not have the power to make a fact finding not supported by any evidence whatever. In Heileman Brewing Co. v. Industrial Comm., 161 Wis. 46, 152 N.W. 446 (1915), we said a finding will be reversed only when there is no evidence to support it. In Johnstad v. Lake Superior T......
  • Tewes v. Indus. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1927
    ...employment. Ellis v. State, 138 Wis. 513, 119 N. W. 1110, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 444, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1022; Heileman Brewing Co. v. Industrial Comm., 161 Wis. 46, 152 N. W. 446;Interlake Pulp & Paper Co. v. Industrial Comm., 186 Wis. 228, 202 N. W. 175. The circumstance most strongly relied u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT