## Facts

- Doris Smith worked as a checker at a supermarket operated by Bettendorf‑Rapp, Inc.; Wesley H. Lannert was the store manager.
- During a work shift, Smith asked Lannert for permission to take a restroom break; he told her to return to work and said he would “spank” her if she did not.
- Smith walked toward the employees’ lounge/restroom area; she testified Lannert grabbed her from behind, pushed her into the lounge, bent her over, and spanked her several times, leaving red marks and causing pain and embarrassment.
- Lannert contended the incident was a joke and not part of his managerial duties; Smith testified neither she nor Lannert were joking.
- Store policy allowed employee breaks at managerial discretion and prohibited “laying hands” on employees.
- Smith sued Lannert and Bettendorf‑Rapp for tort damages.
- The jury awarded Smith $2,500 against both defendants and awarded Bettendorf‑Rapp $2,500 on its cross‑claim against Lannert; by special interrogatory, the jury found Smith’s injuries were not sustained in the course of employment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Missouri Workmen’s Compensation Act provided Smith’s exclusive remedy because the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported tort liability for assault/battery and resulting injury.
3. Whether Lannert acted within the scope of his employment such that Bettendorf‑Rapp was liable under respondeat superior, despite a policy forbidding physical contact with employees.
4. Whether the verdicts were legally inconsistent because the jury found employer vicarious liability yet also found the injury not sustained in the course of employment for workers’ compensation purposes.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the $2,500 judgment for Smith against both Lannert and Bettendorf‑Rapp and affirmed the $2,500 judgment for Bettendorf‑Rapp on its cross‑claim against Lannert.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding of a completed battery and compensable personal injury.
- The court held the workers’ compensation exclusivity defense did not bar the tort action because the jury could reasonably find the injury was not sustained in the course of employment.
- The court held the jury could reasonably find Lannert acted within the scope of his employment when he physically “disciplined” Smith in response to a work‑related direction, making Bettendorf‑Rapp vicariously liable.
- The court rejected the claim of inconsistent verdicts, holding that “scope of employment” (tort) and “arising out of and in the course of employment” (workers’ compensation) apply different standards and may yield different results on the same facts.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy only for injuries that both arise out of and are sustained in the course of employment; whether those statutory elements are met may be for the jury on disputed facts.
- A battery may be found where an employee is intentionally grabbed, forcibly moved, and struck without consent, causing pain or offensive contact.
- An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional tort committed on the premises during working hours when the act arises from an attempt to perform assigned duties, even if accomplished by a forbidden method or in violation of employer instructions.
- “Scope of employment” for respondeat superior and “course of employment” for workers’ compensation are distinct legal inquiries; findings on one do not automatically control the other.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a tort recovery for an employee assaulted by a store manager, holding that the jury could reject workers’ compensation exclusivity while still finding the employer vicariously liable because the manager’s conduct arose from an attempt to enforce workplace discipline, albeit by an unauthorized and wrongful means.


Smith v. Lannert, 429 S.W.2d 8 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968)