Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.010 (2026)

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3689, A.L. 1980 H.B. 1396)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3299

(1960) Defenses that injuries to employee were subject to workmen's compensation law and that plaintiff was estopped to sue by accepting benefits cannot be raised by motion to dismiss but should be asserted by answer.  Roberts v. Epicure Foods Co. (Mo.), 330 S.W.2d 837.

(1960) Fact that employee who is required to work in place where she necessarily inhaled noxious fumes with the result that she contracted pulmonary emphysema did not render the workmen's compensation law of Missouri inapplicable to her injury.  Common law action for negligence of employer dismissed.  Oggesen v. General Cable Corp., 273 F.2d 331.

(1962) Where maintenance man in attempting to unlock a perforating machine placed a pipe over wrench handle and bounced up and down on end of pipe thereby sustaining back injury, the injury was an accident and compensable. Brotherton v. International Shoe Company (A.), 360 S.W.2d 108.

(1962) Evidence supported finding claimant as result of fall suffered fifteen percent permanent partial disability of left arm where elbow was enlarged and would tire during the day although there was no loss of motion and claimant suffered no loss of earnings.  Franklin v. St. Louis Independent Packing Company (A.), 360 S.W.2d 350.

(1963) Evidence was sufficient to justify finding of industrial commission that claimant sustained an accident when he slipped on floor and twisted his back while holding a sixty-pound sack of sugar and fell resulting in injuries to his lower back notwithstanding his medical testimony was only to the effect that it was possible that the accident resulted in the back injury.  Smith v. Terminal Transfer Company (A.), 372 S.W.2d 659.

(1967) Where employee was injured in automobile accident while on the way to work in transportation furnished by the employer, the transportation was an implied term of and within the scope of the employment contract, and the accident arose out of and in the course of employee's employment.  Griffin v. Ross (A.), 411 S.W.2d 649.

(1967) An accidental injury "arises out of" employment only when there is a causal connection between the employee's injury and his employment, and a claimant meets this requirement only when the injury is the rational consequence of an act incidental to his employment.  Blatt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (A.), 413 S.W.2d 533.

(1967) A showing that claimant's job involved pulling two hundred and fifty pound car loaded with staves onto a skid and was done intentionally in accordance with preconceived design and that nothing unusual occurred other than claimant feeling a pain was not sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof that claimant had experienced an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.  Bauer v. Independent Stave Co. (A.), 417 S.W.2d 693.

(1968) Driver hired by delivery service to work exclusively on hauling for cooperage company, under the direction and control of cooperage company, was employee of cooperage company for workmen's compensation purposes.  Feldmann v. Dot Delivery Service (A.), 425 S.W.2d 491.

(1980) Exclusive remedy of parents of deceased worker for compensation for alleged wrongful death of worker in employment accident under Workers' Compensation Law; overruling Miller v. Hotel Savoy Co. (A.), 68 S.W.2d 929. Combs v. City of Maryville (A.), 609 S.W.2d 475.

(1991)  Where worker alleges wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Missouri's workers' compensation law provides exclusive remedy for emotional distress inflicted during course of employment.  Waldermeyer v. ITT Consumer Financial Corp., 767 F.Supp. 989 (E.D. Mo.).

(1993) Where employee alleged former employer invaded her privacy because there was peep hole between her bathroom and supervisors' bathroom, court ruled that in all instances where an injured person seeks to hold employer liable under any common law tort theory, including intentional torts, for injuries resulting from work experiences, Labor and Industrial Relations Commission has exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine whether injuries are result of an accident covered by workers' compensation.  Massey v. Victor I.  Phillips Co., 827 F.Supp. 597 (W.D. Mo.).

(1993) Where police officer alleged intentional torts by city and by co-employees individually, claim against city was barred by workers' compensation act; however, claims against individual co-employees, including police chief, were not barred by workers' compensation act.  Russell v. City of Overland Police Dept., 838 F.Supp 1350 (E.D. Mo.).

(1993) Where claimant who was employed by company based in Jefferson City was traveling home from job site at Lake of the Ozarks with saw belonging to company in car, travel did not serve mutual benefit and dual purpose doctrine did not apply.  Accident did not occur on employer's premises or at work site; therefore, claim did not fall within workers' compensation act.  Stockman v. J.C. Industries, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 24 (Mo. App. W.D.).