The plaintiff’s decedent, an undocumented laborer, owned a small company that contracted to clean freezers at the defendant’s seafood production facility. He died when he became locked inside one of the freezers which did not have an interior escape latch, for many years.

Each night, the decedent would enter the freezer in question, hose it down, exit the freezer, close the door, and turn on the automatic self-cleaning mode, which produced hot water and steam for a period of time. The freezer doors were shut while the automatic self-cleaning mode was running.

On the night of the incident, the door to the freezer was closed with the decedent still inside. The decedent was unable to exit the freezer because the interior door handle was inoperable. When the automatic cleaning mode activated, the decedent was stuck inside and basically scalded to death.

The plaintiffs named as defendants the owner of the production facility and the manufacturer of the freezer, which was based in a foreign country.

The plaintiffs undertook an extensive investigation and deposed several witnesses from both the production facility and the manufacturer. Throughout discovery, the plaintiffs engaged in discovery disputes and motion practice, and worked with a digital forensic expert to ensure that all details of the event were fully uncovered.

The defendant manufacturer had serviced the freezer approximately one year prior to the incident, but had no contact with the freezer since that time. The manufacturer defended the case on the theory that the interior handle had been operable at the time it had serviced the freezer, that the handle had become inoperable sometime after the manufacturer last had any contact servicing the freezer, and that it bore no responsibility for what happened.

The defendant owner defended the case largely on the theory that it hired the decedent to clean the freezer. As part of that process, the decedent was to enter the freezer nightly and make sure it was in good working order. If the freezer was not in good working order, the decedent was responsible for reporting any problems and ensuring repair. As such, the defendant owner alleged that the decedent was responsible for his own death, according to the owner.

Both defendants argued that the decedent was comparatively negligent in that he was intimately familiar with the freezer, working with it regularly over a period of years; that he knew or should have known of any issues regarding the freezer; and that, in addition to failing to report such issues, the decedent failed to take appropriate precautions while cleaning the freezer to prevent his own death. They claimed that he had no reason to enter the freezer and it was negligent of him to do so.

However, the plaintiffs were able to effectively counter the defendants’ comparative negligence arguments by using the defendants’ own documents obtained during discovery, along with other industry practices to illustrate why it was necessary for the decedent to enter the freezer prior to his death.

After substantial investigation and discovery, the plaintiffs utilized additional experts, including industry and OSHA experts, a digital forensics expert, and metallurgists to support their liability theory.

The industry and OSHA experts established the negligence and ultimately recklessness of the defendants, allowing the plaintiffs to establish their ability to pursue punitive damages at trial.

Meanwhile, the industry and metallurgical experts established that the interior handle was, more likely than not, inoperable for much longer than the manufacturer admitted, in effect demonstrating that the defendant manufacturer failed to repair and replace the missing handle during their servicing of the machine.

The plaintiffs were able to show on multiple fronts that the defendant owner was negligent for its failure to provide a safe work environment, due to its knowledge of and the dangers presented by the missing interior handle; its failure to address the danger; and its admitted failure to comply with OSHA and industry standards.

Similarly, the plaintiffs were able to show that the defendant manufacturer knew or should have known of the missing interior handle, that it should have repaired and replaced it during servicing, and that it failed to comply with OSHA and industry standards.

DAMAGES

The plaintiffs also retained expert medical witnesses to establish the separate and distinct damages endured by the decedent and his two children, one in the USA and one in Brazil. One of the plaintiffs’ medical experts was able to portray a vivid timeline of the conscious pain and suffering endured by the decedent as he slowly died.

The plaintiffs utilized a psychological expert to support and more fully illustrate the damages, recoverable under Massachusetts’ wrongful death statute, endured by the decedent’s children, due to the sudden and tragic loss of their father.

The case settled a day long mediation shortly before trial.

Action: Negligence and tort, products/premises liability

Injuries alleged: Wrongful death by hyperthermia

Case name: Withheld

Court/case no.: Withheld

Jury and/or judge: N/A (settled)

Amount: $12.94 million

Date: January 2026

Attorneys: Christopher M. Jantzen, Esquire of Jantzen & Associates, P.C. and Douglas K. Sheff, Esquire of Sheff & Cook