## Facts

- James K. Byler was the president of Farmers State Bank of Texas County, Missouri, and Loretta K. Jordan was the bank’s vice president.
- Anticipating robbery or extortion threats, the bank arranged security guidance sessions with law enforcement (including FBI participation) and gave employees instructions for responding to such threats.
- The bank’s instructions included telling employees to notify another bank official if a threat occurred and to comply with directions about delivering money (i.e., not to resist).
- One morning, Byler received a phone call from a man claiming Byler’s wife was being held hostage at the Bylers’ home.
- The caller demanded that Byler bring $100,000 to the home.
- Byler informed Jordan of the threat, consistent with the bank’s instructions.
- Byler and Jordan obtained the money and went together to Byler’s home to deliver it as the caller directed.
- After delivering the money, Byler and Jordan were confronted in the garage and shot, suffering serious injuries.
- Byler and Jordan filed workers’ compensation claims.
- The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded benefits to both claimants, and Farmers State appealed, arguing the injuries were not work-related.

## Issues

1. Whether injuries from a shooting during an extortion demand for bank funds “arose out of” employment when the employer had prepared employees to comply with such threats.
2. Whether the injuries occurred “in the course of” employment when the shooting happened off the bank’s premises at Byler’s home while the employees were delivering money as demanded.
3. Whether the Commission could reasonably find compensability despite the bank’s argument that the shooting was motivated by the assailant’s desire to avoid identification rather than by the victims’ employment.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s award of workers’ compensation benefits.
- The court held the injuries “arose out of” employment because the assault was causally connected to the employees’ work handling bank money and responding to an extortion demand aimed at obtaining bank funds.
- The court held the injuries occurred “in the course of” employment because Byler and Jordan were acting during their work activities, following the bank’s response instructions, and carrying out a task tied to their bank duties even though it took them off premises.
- The court rejected the bank’s contention that the shooting was unrelated to employment simply because the assailant may also have wanted to eliminate witnesses; the employees’ work-related delivery of bank funds placed them where the violence occurred.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claim generally requires proof that the injury both (1) “arose out of” employment (a causal connection between the work and the injury-producing risk) and (2) occurred “in the course of” employment (time, place, and circumstances linked to employment).
- A criminal assault can be compensable when the employment exposes the employee to a risk connected to the work or places the employee in a work-created situation that leads to the injury.
- An injury may occur “in the course of” employment even off premises when the employee is performing a work task or a work-connected mission, including responding to an employer-anticipated threat using employer-provided instructions.
- On review, appellate courts defer to the Commission’s fact-finding and uphold the award when supported by the record and consistent with the governing workers’ compensation standards.

## Conclusion

Jordan and Byler were entitled to workers’ compensation because they were injured while carrying out a bank-related task—obtaining and delivering bank funds in response to an extortion demand—using procedures the bank had provided for robbery/extortion situations, and the off-premises shooting at Byler’s home did not break the connection between the employment and the injuries.


Jordan v. Farmers State Bank, 791 S.W.2d 1 (1990)