§10.8 Meaning of “arising Out Of” and “in the Course Of” Employment, and Other Fact Situations

• Library: Workers' Compensation Law Deskbook Vol. 2 (2020 Ed.)

2. (§10.8) Meaning of “Arising out of” and “in the Course of” Employment, and Other Fact Situations

Generally, a landowner who contracts with an independent contractor to perform work on his or her land is not liable for bodily injury caused by the contractor or one of the contractor’s employees. Smith v. Inter-County Tel. Co., 559 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Mo. banc 1977); Hofstetter v. Union Elec. Co., 724 S.W.2d 527, 529–30 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986).

In Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1991), the Court extended immunity afforded to landowners when it held that an employee of an independent contractor engaged in “inherently dangerous activities” could not maintain an action against the landowner on a theory of vicarious liability. Zueck overruled previous decisions in which employees of independent contractors were allowed to maintain claims against landowners when engaged in inherently dangerous activities on the landowner’s premises under the theory of vicarious liability. See Mallory v. La. Pure Ice & Supply Co., 6 S.W.2d 617 (Mo. banc 1928); Ballinger v. Gascosage Elec. Coop., 788 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. banc 1990). Zueck was expanded to include claims by employees of independent contractors against landowners on theories of direct negligence. Matteuzzi v. The Columbus P’ship, L.P., 866 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. banc 1993); Owens v. Shop ’N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 866 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. banc 1993).

If an employee is injured on the employer’s premises upon termination, but after working hours, the employer still retains immunity from a common-law suit. In Jones v. Jay Truck Driver Training Center, Inc., 736 S.W.2d 468, 470 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987), the court adopted the rule: “Injuries incurred by an employee while leaving the premises, collecting pay, or getting his clothing or tools within a reasonable time after termination of the employment are within the course of employment, since they are normal incidents of the employment relationship.”

But counsel should carefully note that § 287.020.10, now RSMo Supp. 2018, specifically abrogated Drewes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. banc 1999), and the meaning of “arising out of” and “in the course of” employment to reject coverage under the Law (thus, immunity from a personal injury lawsuit) when the employee is off the immediate premises and not on the clock. See Bivins v. St. John’s Regional Health Center, 272 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008), in which the court determined that...