## Facts

- Woodrow Porter, Jr. worked as a janitor for the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) at an elementary school and lived across the street.
- During his workday, Porter saw a child near his car parked at his home and crossed the street to his property, believing the child was vandalizing the car.
- Porter physically disciplined the child on his home property.
- Later that day, the child’s grandmother came to the school, asked to speak with Porter, and Porter was summoned to his supervisor’s office for a meeting.
- The meeting became heated; Porter was sent back to work.
- The grandmother then sought Porter out on school premises and shot and killed him during working hours.
- Porter’s widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits; the trial court awarded benefits after litigation following an administrative award.

## Issues

1. Whether Porter’s death by assault on school premises arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment, given that the dispute began with Porter’s off-premises conduct at his home.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment awarding workers’ compensation death benefits.
- The court held there was legally and factually sufficient evidence that the fatal assault occurred in the course and scope of Porter’s employment.
- The court rejected DISD’s argument that the assault was purely personal and therefore noncompensable.

## Legal Principles

- An injury is compensable under Texas workers’ compensation law if it occurs in the course and scope of employment, meaning it originates in the employer’s business and occurs while the employee is furthering the employer’s affairs.
- Assaults may be compensable when they are traceable to a risk arising out of employment or when employment places the employee in contact with the assailant and the assault is not wholly personal and unrelated to work.
- The location where the initial disagreement began is not controlling; the key question is whether the assault’s origin is sufficiently connected to an employment risk.
- An injury need not be foreseeable in a tort sense; it must arise from a risk reasonably incidental to the employment.
- On appeal from a bench trial, an appellate court sustains the judgment if evidence is legally and factually sufficient when viewed under applicable sufficiency standards.

## Conclusion

Because the confrontation was drawn into the workplace through a supervisor-directed meeting and the shooting occurred on school premises during working hours, the court treated the assault as arising from an employment-related risk rather than a purely personal dispute, and it affirmed death benefits for Porter’s widow.


Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Porter, 759 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988)