Jordan v. Farmers State Bank
Missouri Court of Appeals
791 S.W.2d 1 (1990)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
James K. Byler (plaintiff) was the president of Farmers State Bank of Texas County, Missouri (Farmers State) (defendant). One morning, Byler received a phone call from a man who claimed he had taken Byler’s wife hostage at the Bylers’ home. The man told Byler to bring $100,000 home. Farmers State, anticipating the possibility of robbery or extortion, had instructed its employees to notify another bank official of a threat and to comply with any instructions regarding the delivery of money. Employees were told not to be heroic. After the phone call, Byler told Loretta K. Jordan, the bank’s vice president, of the threat to his wife. Byler and Jordan gathered the money and went together to Byler’s home. Once they had delivered the money, Byler and Jordan were shot in Byler’s garage. Byler and Jordan filed workers’-compensation claims for the injuries they sustained. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded Byler and Jordan benefits. Farmers State appealed, arguing that Byler’s and Jordan’s injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of their employment. Farmers State argued that Byler and Jordan were shot because of their presence at a crime scene and the possibility they could identify the perpetrator, not because of their employment with the bank.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prewitt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
