Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 102.57 (2026)
Violations of safety provisions, penalty
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
102.57102.57 Violations of safety provisions, penalty. If injury is caused by the failure of the employer to comply with any statute, rule, or order of the department of safety and professional services, compensation and death benefits provided in this chapter shall be increased by 15 percent but the total increase may not exceed $15,000. Failure of an employer reasonably to enforce compliance by employees with any statute, rule, or order of the department of safety and professional services constitutes failure by the employer to comply with that statute, rule, or order.
102.57 AnnotationThis section and s. 102.58 may be applicable in the same case if the negligence of both the employer and employee are causes of the employee’s injury. Milwaukee Forge v. DILHR, 66 Wis. 2d 428, 225 N.W.2d 476 (1975).
102.57 AnnotationDeath benefits for dependent children are not increased by this section. Schwartz v. DILHR, 72 Wis. 2d 217, 240 N.W.2d 173 (1976).
102.57 AnnotationThe application of this section is not restricted to statutes “of the” Department of Workforce Development. Statutes are not “of” departments of the state. The reasonable reading of this section is that “of the department” modifies “order” and not “statute.” The only word that modifies “statute” in the first sentence of the section is “any.” This section allows an administrative law judge to increase worker’s compensation benefits if it finds that the employer failed to comply with any statute. A violation of a federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard was not a violation of “a statute, rule, or order of the department” but was evidence of a violation of a Wisconsin statute, the safe place statute, s. 101.11. Sohn Manufacturing Inc. v. LIRC, 2013 WI App 112, 350 Wis. 2d 469, 838 N.W.2d 131, 12-2566.
102.57 AnnotationThis section is not preempted by federal law. It is not an attempt to regulate in an area that the state has not been authorized to regulate and does not constitute enforcement of federal workplace safety regulations. Rather, this section is a worker’s compensation law “with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course of, employment” exempted from preemption under 29 USC 653 (b) (4). Sohn Manufacturing Inc. v. LIRC, 2013 WI App 112, 350 Wis. 2d 469, 838 N.W.2d 131, 12-2566.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1936–2020 · leading case: Marquardt v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2002 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Marquardt v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2002 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “After the accident, for approximately two years, Marquardt received temporary disability benefits from Milwaukee County under the Worker's Compensation Act, WIS. STAT. Chapter 102 (1997-98).”
Marquardt v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2000 WI App 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “9) (1994) 1 required that the fifteen percent penalty he *296 received under Wis. Stat. § 102.57 (1997-98) 2 be set off against his disability retirement pension benefits.”
Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (1988). “§ 35-1-12 (1953); Wis. Stat. § 102.57 (1985-1986). [8] Prior to enacting § 290, Congress had authorized recovery of damages under state tort law by persons injured or killed on federal enclaves.”
Schwartz v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 240 N.W.2d 173 (Wis. 1976). “Therefore, the employer was liable for payment of increased benefits under the provisions of sec. 102.57, Stats.: “. . . Where injury is caused by the failure of the employer to comply with any statute or any lawful order of the department, compensation and death benefits as…”
Aslakson v. Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 2007 WI 39 (Wis. 2007). “§ 102.57 imposes penalties on an employer for injuries caused by an employer's failure to comply with any statute, rule, or order of the department.”
Wasley v. Kosmatka, 184 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. 1971). “The court held the employee entitled to extra compensation pursuant to sec. 102.57, Stats., because of the foreman’s failure to use a proper method for determining the status of the power line.”
Sohn Mfg. Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2013 WI App 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “When an employer fails in its duty to comply with a safety statute and an employee is injured as a result, Wis. Stat. § 102.57 allows for the award of a penalty payment to the injured employee.”
RTE Corp. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 276 N.W.2d 290 (Wis. 1979). “Zenefski, widow of the deceased, under sec. 102.57, Stats. 1973. 1 The question as framed by the parties is: IS THERE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF DILHR THAT THE FATAL INJURY TO RICHARD ZENEFSKI WAS CAUSED BY THE FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS IND…”
Guse v. A. O. Smith Corp., 51 N.W.2d 24 (Wis. 1952). “’ “It is thus clear that the employer’s exclusive liability is for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
Zimbrick v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 106 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “See Wis. Stat. § 102.57 . 1 A safety specialist from the Department of Commerce investigated the incident and made the initial determination that the Foundry was responsible for violating a safety rule and liable accordingly.”
Icke Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 139 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. 1966). “Sec. 102.57, Stats., provides: “Where injury is caused by the failure of the employer to comply with any statute or any lawful order of the commission, compensation and death benefits as provided in this chapter shall be increased 15 per cent.”
Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 N.W.2d 817 (Wis. 1959). “Failure of an employer reasonably to enforce compliance by employees with such statute or order of- the commission shall constitute failure by the employer to comply with such statute or order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.