Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 102.58 (2026)
Decreased compensation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
102.58(1)(1) If injury is caused by the failure of the employee to use safety devices that are provided in accordance with any statute, rule, or order of the department of safety and professional services and that are adequately maintained, and the use of which is reasonably enforced by the employer, or if injury results from the employee’s failure to obey any reasonable rule adopted and reasonably enforced by the employer for the safety of the employee and of which the employee has notice, the compensation and death benefit provided in this chapter shall be reduced by 15 percent, but the total reduction may not exceed $15,000.
102.58(2)(2) If an employee violates the employer’s policy concerning employee drug or alcohol use and is injured, and if that violation is causal to the employee’s injury, no compensation or death benefits shall be payable to the injured employee or a dependent of the injured employee and no payment under s. 102.49 (5) (b) or (c) shall be payable. Nothing in this subsection shall reduce or eliminate an employer’s liability for incidental compensation under s. 102.42 (1) to (8) or drug treatment under s. 102.425.
102.58 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 148; 1981 c. 92; 1983 a. 98; 1987 a. 179; 1995 a. 448; 2001 a. 37; 2015 a. 55, 180; 2021 a. 29.
102.58 AnnotationThe burden of proof is on the employer to establish not only the fact of intoxication, but also a causal connection between the condition and the injury or accident. Haller Beverage Corp. v. DILHR, 49 Wis. 2d 233, 181 N.W.2d 418 (1970).
102.58 AnnotationThis section and s. 102.57 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).
102.58 AnnotationWhether a traveling employee’s multiple drinks at a tavern was a deviation was irrelevant when the employee was injured while engaged in a later act reasonably necessary to living. Under this section, intoxication does not defeat a worker’s compensation claim but only decreases the benefits. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30, 242 Wis. 2d 47, 624 N.W.2d 129, 98-3577.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1933–2001 · leading case: Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30 (Wis. 2001).
Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30 (Wis. 2001). “The Commission further concluded that the award should be reduced by 15% under Wis. Stat. § 102.58 because Larsen's injury resulted from intoxication.”
Grant Cnty. Serv. Bureau, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 131 N.W.2d 293 (Wis. 1964). “[2] This is not an instance of a violation of a safety rule so as to reduce recovery by 15 percent as provided in sec. 102.58, Stats.”
Simmons Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 248 N.W. 443 (Wis. 1933). “before the commission establishes that (1) the employee’s injuries were self-inflicted — in other *448 words, the employee committed suicide; because (2) the employee was not “performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment” when at the elevator shaft down…”
Chadwick v. Indus. Comm'n, 534 N.E.2d 1000 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). “§114 — 105 (Harrison 1983); La. Rev. Stat. Ann.”
Wasley v. Kosmatka, 184 N.W.2d 821 (Wis. 1971). “Sec. 102.58, Stats. The adoption of percentage penalties for employer or employee misconduct, rather than subjecting the employer to common-law tort actions or the employee to loss of benefits, is gaining increased acceptance as the best method of penalizing misconduct of either…”
Dibble v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 161 N.W.2d 913 (Wis. 1968). “2 See sec. 102.58, Stats., and Nutrine Candy Co.”
Gimbel Bros. v. Indus. Comm'n, 282 N.W. 78 (Wis. 1938). “Sec. 102.58, Stats. 1935, provides: “Where injury is caused by the wilful failure of the employee to use safety devices where provided by the employer, or where injury results from the employee’s wilful failure to obey any reasonable rule adopted by the employer for the safety…”
Haller Beverage Corp. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 181 N.W.2d 418 (Wis. 1970). “1 Sec. 102.58, Stats. 2 “. . . If the employer fails to convince the Industrial Commission, or if the commission has a legitimate doubt about the alleged intoxication or its causal relationship with the injury, then it is the duty of the commission to deny the claim for a…”
M. W. Martin, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 109 N.W.2d 92 (Wis. 1961). “*580 (2) In any event, such violation constituted a wilful failure to obey a reasonable rule of the employer which, under the provisions of sec. 102.58, Stats., would require a 15 per cent reduction in the benefits awarded.”
Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. Indus. Comm'n, 99 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. 1959). “Sec. 102.58, Stats. 1955, 16 W. S. A., p.”
Eau Claire Elec. Co-Operative v. Indus. Comm'n, 102 N.W.2d 274 (Wis. 1960). “” Another statute, sec. 102.58, Stats., provides for the reduction of compensation by 15 per cent where injury is caused by the wilful failure of the employee to use required safety devices.”
Milwaukee Forge v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 225 N.W.2d 476 (Wis. 1975). “A similar objective would appear to be accomplished under sec. 102.58, Stats. Both these objectives would be served by imposing the provisions of both statutes where the conduct of both the employer and the employee are substantial factors in bringing about the injury.”
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.