Jordan v. Farmers State Bank of Texas County, s. 16725
| Decision Date | 20 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 16725,16726,s. 16725 |
| Citation | 791 S.W.2d 1 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Loretta K. JORDAN, Claimant-Respondent, v. FARMERS STATE BANK OF TEXAS COUNTY, Employer-Appellant, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Insurer. Kevin James BYLER, Personal Representative for the Estate of James R. Byler, Claimant-Respondent, v. FARMERS STATE BANK OF TEXAS COUNTY, Employer-Appellant, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Insurer. |
Rich D. Moore, Kenneth A. Wagoner, Brill, Moore & Wagoner, P.C., West Plains, for claimants-respondents.
Bernard C. Rice, Joseph C. Blanton, Jr., Blanton, Rice, Sidwell & Ottinger, Sikeston, for employer-appellant.
Farmers State Bank of Texas County, the employer of Loretta K. Jordan and James R. Byler, appeals from an award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission granting workers' compensation benefits for injuries received by the two employees. The question in both appeals is whether the injuries of James R. Byler and Loretta K. Jordan arose out of and in the course of their employment. As the issues presented are almost identical, the appeals were consolidated. 1
The relevant facts are not in dispute. James R. Byler was the president of the Farmers State Bank of Texas County, Missouri located in Houston, Missouri. Shortly after he arrived for work on April 24, 1986, he received a phone call from a man, who identified himself as Jay Lewis. Lewis had taken Byler's wife hostage at the Bylers' home. Lewis told Byler that he had "five seconds to get out of the bank, go to Raymondville, and pick up a hundred thousand dollars." There is a branch of the Farmers State Bank in Raymondville which is located a few miles from Houston.
Byler told Jordan, the vice president of Farmers State Bank, of the call and asked whether she was going with him to get the money. Jordan decided to accompany Byler because he had a history of heart problems. They went to Raymondville and got currency and then went to Byler's home. They placed the money where directed and then Lewis, carrying a firearm, made them go to Byler's garage and lie on the floor. Lewis then shot them. 2
The Farmers State Bank had anticipated the possibilities of robbery or extortion. The bank had Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and other law enforcement officers talk with the bank employees about what they should do in the event either occurred. If a person was being held hostage the bank employees were to begin preparation for delivery of the sum demanded and to notify another bank official of the threat and the employee's intentions regarding it. They were advised to do as they were told and not to try to be heroic, to follow the procedures and guidelines that they were given, both orally and in writing.
In this proceeding Byler and Jordan sought benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law for the injuries received from the shootings. The Commission, adopting the findings of Chief Administrative Law Judge James H. Wesley II, on the issues here, found that the injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. Review is of the Commission's Award. Wilhite v. Hurd, 411 S.W.2d 72, 76 (Mo.1967).
This court's review under § 287.495.1 includes questions of law. If the facts are not significantly in dispute the question of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment is a matter of law. Jordan v. St. Louis County Police Dept., 699 S.W.2d 124, 125 (Mo.App.1985); Dillard v. City of St. Louis, 685 S.W.2d 918, 922 (Mo.App.1984).
In interpreting the workers' compensation law, all doubts are resolved in favor of the employee. Page v. Green, 686 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Mo.App.1985). The mandate for liberal construction of the Workers' Compensation Act set forth in § 287.800, RSMo 1986, means that benefits should be extended to the largest possible class of workers and the denial of benefits to the smallest possible class. Id. at 531. "One of the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act is to relieve the burden of workers incapacitated by injuries from the public and place the burden upon industry." Id at 530. See also Jordan, 699 S.W.2d at 125 ().
For an employer to be liable under the Workers' Compensation Law an employee's injuries must occur by accident "arising out of and in the course of" employment. § 287.120.1, RSMo 1986. 3 "Personal injuries arising out of and in the course of such employment" does not cover workers "except while engaged in or about the premises where their duties are being performed, or where their services require their presence as a part of such service." § 287.020.5, RSMo 1986.
The terms "out of" and "in the course of" are separate tests which must be met for an injury to be compensable. Davison v. Florsheim Shoe Co., 750 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Mo.App.1988); Page, 686 S.W.2d at 532. Case law has defined the phrase "arising out of" to mean the injury is a natural and reasonable incident of the employment; there must be a causal connection between the nature of the duties or conditions the employee is required to perform and the resulting injury. "[I]n the course of" is occurring within the period of employment at a place where the employee may reasonably be, while the person is reasonably fulfilling the duties of employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto. Parrish v. Kansas City Security Service, 682 S.W.2d 20, 26 (Mo.App.1984); Davison, supra 750 S.W.2d at 483.
Other cases have worded their analyses of these concepts slightly differently. "An injury 'arises out of' the employment if (1) the injury results from a natural and reasonable incident of the employment, a rational consequence of some hazard connected therewith or a risk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talir v. Mid-West Area Agency on Aging, MID-WEST
...affirm. While interpretation of workers' compensation law requires us to resolve all doubts in favor of Claimant, Jordan v. Farmers State Bank, 791 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1990), our review is limited to questions of law. § 287.495.1, RSMo Supp.1992. In addition, we may only reverse the Commiss......
-
Hilton v. Pizza Hut, WD
...terms "out of" and "in the course of" are separate tests which must both be met for the injury to be compensable. Jordan v. Farmers State Bank, 791 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1990). It is well settled that an accident arises "out of" the employment when there is a causal connection between the con......