Case Name: Wisconsin Mutual Liability Company and another, Respondents, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and others, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1924-06-03
Citations: 184 Wis. 203
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wisconsin Mutual Liability Company and another, Respondents, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 203–211

Head Matter:
Wisconsin Mutual Liability Company and another, Respondents, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and others, Appellants.
May 6
June 3, 1924.
Workmen’s compensation: Death of minor: Dependency of parents: Earnings of minor less than cost of support: Future contributions.
1. To justify an award of compensation under the workmen’s compensation act to parents for the death of their child, present dependency of the parents upon the child must be shown as a matter of fact. p. 205.
2. Dependency such as will justify an award exists only when the amount contributed by the child during the preceding year exceeds the cost of his support for that year. p. 204.
3. Where the cost of the support of a minor child exceeded his contributions the compensation act was inapplicable. There being no present dependency, no award could be made for his death, nor could burial expenses provided by the act be imposed on his employer; and since there were no present losses there can be no award for future losses, p. 204.
Crownhart, J., dissents.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Action to test the validity of an award made by the Industrial Commission. Frederick Baldus, a son of the defendant Baldus, was accidentally killed while in the employ of the Sentinel Company. The evidence showed that the Baldus family consisted of father, mother, and four children, all of whom contributed sums ranging from $60 to $.122.35 the preceding year to the family fund. Frederick, under the most liberal estimate the evidence would warrant, contributed $122.35. The most conservative estimate of the annual cost of his support was $188. The Industrial Commission, evidently relying upon sub. (4) (c), sec. 2394 — 9, Stats. 1921, reading: “Where, by reason of minority, sickness, or other causes during such year, the foregoing basis is unfair or inadequate, the death benefit shall be such sum as the commission may determine to be fair and just, considering the death benefits allowed in other cases where such untoward causes do not exist,” awarded $800 to the father, $800 to the mother, and $100 for burial expenses. The trial court set aside the award because no dependency was shown, and the defendants appealed.
For the appellants there was a brief by the Attorney General and Mortimer Levitan, assistant attorney general, attorneys for the Industrial Commission, and Glicksman, Gold & Corrigan of Milwaukee, attorneys for Joseph J. Baldus and Anna Baldus, and oral argument by Mr. Levitan and Mr. Walter D. Corrigan.
For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of Roehr •& Steinmets, attorneys, and Julius E. Roelrr, of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

Opinion:
Vinje, C. J.
The constitutionality of that part of the section above quoted was argued, but we express no opinion upon that subject because it is not involved in this case. The dependency of parents upon their children must be shown as a matter of fact in each case. The law does not infer it. Wisconsin D. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 161 Wis. 42, 152 N. W. 460. And dependency exists only when the amount contributed by a minor child the preceding year exceeds the cost of his support for such year. Milwaukee B. Co. v. Wiecki, 173 Wis. 391, 396, 181 N. W. 308. Here the cost of support exceeded the minor's contribution, hence there was no dependency. The parents suffered no present financial loss by his death. The workmen's compensation law was enacted for the purpose of in a measure making good present financial losses and future losses for a limited time based upon present losses. Where there are no present losses there can be no award for future losses. As was aptly said by the trial judge in his- opinion, "This is the fundamental feature that distinguishes the award under the compensation act from damages. under the common law." The argument, therefore, of the attorney general to the effect that the minor's death would cause future losses to the parents is beside the question. Present dependency must be shown before any provision of the compensation act can be invoked. In this case, under the rule adopted by this court in Milwaukee B. Co. v. Wiecki, 173 Wis. 391, 181 N. W. 308, there was no present financial loss to the parents and therefore the compensation act does not apply to the case at all. Since it does not apply to the case, it follows that no burial expenses provided for by the act can be imposed upon the employer. Such burial expenses can be imposed only where the act is called into operation by dependency or otherwise.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.