State v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 03 June 1958 |
| Citation | 4 Wis.2d 472,90 N.W.2d 397 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Charles R. Marshall, Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Stewart G. Honeck, Atty. Gen., Mortimer Levitan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for appellant.
Francis Lamb, Sp. Counsel, Madison, for respondents.
The university of Wisconsin occupies a large campus in Madison. A portion of the campus is devoted to the activities of the college of argiculture. The university found it necessary and desirable to construct and maintain roads or drives throughout the campus with sidewalks for persons traveling on foot adjoining many of the drives. Claimant was accustomed to eat his lunch at a restaurant on University avenue and was proceeding thereto on a sidewalk on the southerly side of a road known as 'Linden Drive' when he was injured.
The statute involved is a portion of subs. (1)(c) of sec. 102.03, Stats.1953, which reads as follows:
'* * * Every employe going to and from his employment in the ordinary and usual way, while on the premises of his employer, or while in the immediate vicinity thereof if the injury results from an occurrence on the premises, shall be deemed to be performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment; * * *'
The State contends that the claimant was not 'on the premises of his employer' as that term has been defined in decisions of this court. The various roads and drives constructed and maintained on the university campus are used by the public as well as by university personnel. Therefore the State contends that the claimant was using the sidewalk as a member of the public and not as an employee at the time of his injury.
The State relies upon cases such as International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Commission, 220 Wis. 376, 265 N.W. 193 and Dickson v. Industrial Commission, 261 Wis. 65, 51 N.W.2d 553. In the International Harvester Co. case an employee was injured while walking to work along a short-cut path, traversing open land owned by his employer and by third persons. This open land was in close proximity to the premises where the employee worked but was separated therefrom by a public street. Compensation was denied in that case. In the Dickson case the employer's plant was inclosed by a fence with gates adjacent to a street along which there was a right of way, one-half of which was owned by the employer and one-half by the city. An employee going from work walked through an exit gate and then along a paved pathway across such right of way and was struck by a streetcar operating on the portion of the right of way owned by the city. Compensation was also denied in that case on the ground that the employee was not on the premises of the employer.
The State also relies upon cases like Hornburg v. Morris, 163 Wis. 31, 157 N.W. 556, and Caravella, v. City of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 190, 215 N.W. 911. In those cases city employees were going to and from work on city streets and, although the streets were under the control of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickhut v. Norton
...(1962), 17 Wis.2d 406, 117 N.W.2d 267.10 Waunakee Canning Corp. v. Ind. Comm. (1955), 268 Wis. 518, 68 N.W.2d 25; State v. Ind. Comm. (1958), 4 Wis.2d 472, 90 N.W.2d 397; Grant County Service Bureau, Inc. v. Ind. Comm. (1964), 25 Wis.2d 579, 131 N.W.2d 393.11 'Appellants' last contention is......
-
Nigbor v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
...must be liberally construed to effectuate that policy which the legislature sought to advance by its passage. State v. Industrial Comm., 4 Wis.2d 472, 475, 90 N.W.2d 397 (1958). There is no question but that the Commission received notice of the Nigbor appeal within the thirty-day period. T......
-
Frisbie v. Department of I. L. H. R. (Industrial Commission)
...sec. 412.1, p. 317.11 American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm. (1962), 18 Wis.2d 246, 118 N.W.2d 181.12 State v. Industrial Comm. (1958), 4 Wis.2d 472, 90 N.w.2d 397 (where recovery was granted to a university employee injured on a campus driveway, owned and controlled by the university, e......
-
Pensacola Christian Coll. v. Bruhn
...and Dep't of the Army, U.S. Missile Command, 1989 WL 221872 (Empl.Comp.App.Bd. May 26, 1989) (same). But see State v. Indus. Comm'n, 4 Wis.2d 472, 90 N.W.2d 397 (1958). Because Ms. Bruhn was on her employer's premises, returning to her work station after lunch, she was within the course and......