Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Commission
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Union Camp Corporation v. Blackmon (Ala. 1972)
- American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1957)
- Fry v. Labor & Industry Review Commission (Wis. Ct. App. 2000)
- Marmolejo v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations (Wis. 1979)
- Sauerwein v. Department of Industry & Human Relations (Wis. 1978)
- Kopacka v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations (Wis. 1970)
- Van Roy v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1958)
- Sheets v. Glenwood Telephone Co. (Neb. 1938)
- Miller v. George & Mary Reisch Co. (Neb. 1937)
- Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1934)
- Williams v. State Compensation Commissioner (W. Va. 1933)
- Consolidated Pipe Line Co. v. Mahon (Okla. 1931)
- Pederson v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1930)
- Badger Furniture Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin (Wis. 1928)
- Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1925)
- Monroe County v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1924)
- Widell Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1923)
- Holt Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1919)
- Hanna v. Erie Railroad (N.J. 1930)
- Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Brunson (9th Cir. 1926)
- Gasca v. Texas Pipe Line Co. (La. Ct. App. 1925)
- Hale v. Savage Fire Brick Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1921)
- Granville v. Scranton Coal Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1921)
- Barber Ex Rel. Barber v. George R. Jones Shoe Co. (N.H. 1919)
- Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co. (Kan. 1919)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
An employee of a manufacturing concern was seated on a large piece of rubber in a room in the factory at the noon hour eating his lunch, in accordance with a long existing custom known by and tacitly consented to by his employer, when a large pile of crude rubber near him unexpectedly fell on him, breaking his leg. The question presented in this case is whether he was at the time of the accident performing service “growing out of and incidental to his employment” within the meaning of sec. 2394 — 3, Stats, (the Workmen’s Compensation Act).
This question must be answered in the affirmative on the authority of Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635, 150 N. W. 998.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed, with costs against appellant in favor of respondent Macaluso.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.