Van Pool v. Industrial Commission

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FAIRCHILD
• Citation: Van Pool v. Industrial Commission, 267 Wis. 292, 64 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. 1954)
• Decision Date: 08 June 1954
• Parties: VAN POOL, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (two cases).

Page 813

64 N.W.2d 813

267 Wis. 292

VAN POOL, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (two cases).

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 8, 1954.

Clyde M. Paust, Milwaukee, for appellant.

Vernon W. Thomson, Atty. Gen., Mortimer Levitan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

FAIRCHILD, Chief Justice.

Where injury is caused by the failure of an employer to comply with any statute or any lawful order of the commission, provision is made in sec. 102.57, Stats.1949, for increasing compensation and death benefits 15 per cent. Order No. 3518 of the commission's general orders on safety in construction, in effect at the time of the injuries involved here, is set out in the foregoing statement of facts. The question is raised as to whether the findings of fact by the industrial commission cover alleged important facts on which the final conclusion must rest in a determination of the controversy. Appellant insists that the questions (1) whether the workmen could have seized the life line when the scaffold collapsed, and (2) whether the nature of the work permitted the men to secure themselves to the life line, were not passed upon by any findings of fact. We deem it sufficient, in consideration of those points, to call attention to the rule that findings need be only as to the ultimate facts where the evidence before the commission is sufficient to establish the ultimate facts declared or found and such facts are inherent in and necessary to the determination of the questions involved in arriving at the decision. Our duty on the appeal is to address ourselves directly to the question of whether the record reveals any credible evidence to sustain the findings of the commission.

Sec. 102.57, Stats.1949 permits a recovery of increased compensation in cases involving a failure of the employer to comply with the lawful order of the industrial commission. 'Whether there has been such failure presents an issue of fact for the commission.' Hipke v. Industrial Comm., 261 Wis. 226, 52 N.W.2d 401, 403. In the Hipke case, it was decided that the 'findings are conclusive if supported by any credible evidence (citing cases), as are its logical inferences from undisputed facts. Scandrett v. Industrial Comm., 235 Wis. 1, 291 N.W. 845.' 'Of course it can seldom be demonstrated to a mathematical certainty that the victim would not in some way manage to get into trouble even if the other party had performed the duty to provide safeguards, but it is not required that evidence be carried to the point of proof that the safety device would certainly have prevented the accident and, conversely, that its absence certainly caused it. Leaving contributory negligence out of the question for the moment, our decisions, and those of other jurisdictions over the years, demonstrate that when one owing a duty to make a place or an employment safe fails to do it and that accident occurs which performance of the duty was designed to prevent, then the law presumes that the damage resulted from--was caused by--the failure. The presumption may be rebutted, but if not rebutted by evidence, the plaintiff has met his burden of proof. '* * *...