The family of a worker who died from heat illness can’t pursue a lawsuit against his supervisor, who the family accused of causing the death, according to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Because the supervisor didn’t expose the worker to a risk that wasn’t normally associated with his job, he couldn’t be held personally liable for the death, the court said.
106 degrees, no air conditioning in truck
Thomas Channel worked for Cintas Corp. as a delivery driver. He was assigned to drive one of two trucks that didn’t have a properly working air conditioning unit. He was also one of the oldest drivers at the Webb City, Missouri, facility.
On August 2, 2011, Channel made a scheduled delivery stop at an O’Reilly Auto Parts store. The outside temperature at the time was 106 degrees. After making the delivery, Channel returned to his truck, succumbed to a heat stroke and died.
An autopsy determined cause of death to be hypernatremic dehydration, caused by a thrombosis forming in his coronary artery precipitated by heat, stress and dehydration, which led to cardiac arrhythmia and death.
Assigned truck, route to get rid of him?
Before Channel’s death, his supervisor, Stephen Walker, allegedly told others that he intended to get rid of, or terminate, Channel, according to the appeals court decision. Walker and other supervisors assigned Channel to the second longest route at the Webb City location with knowledge that Channel’s truck didn’t have working air conditioning.
Channel’s family claimed that Channel reported to Walker and other supervisors that he was becoming ill from the extreme summer heat. However, despite the company’s own heat stress safety training, the supervisors continued to put Channel at risk by insisting he continue to work in the heat, according to the family.
Death accidental under Workers’ Compensation Act
The family filed a lawsuit on July 30, 2014, against Walker and Cintas Corp. alleging they caused Channel to suffer an untimely and agonizing death. It also argued that Walker’s “negligent actions toward Channel showed ‘something more’ than negligence and a careless and reckless disregard for the safety of his co-employee” and that he caused Channel to suffer physical, mental and emotional pain, anguish and suffering prior to his death.
On March 15, 2016, a circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Walker and Cintas Corp. finding “that Channel’s death was an accident under workers’ compensation case law, and as such, the Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy as to any claims against Cintas.” As for Walker, the court found that his actions were within his job descriptions for Cintas stating, “If decedent’s death was the result of an unsafe work environment, that would be an employer’s non-delegable duty.”
However, that decision was reversed by the Missouri Court of Appeals on March 28, 2017. At that time, the appeals court found the circuit court lacked authority to make that determination. That authority was exclusive to the state’s Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.
On September 4, 2019, an administrative law judge with the commission’s Division of Workers’ Compensation found Channel’s death was an accident arising out of his employment and awarded burial expenses.
A circuit court ruled Jan. 3, 2022, that Walker’s “actions were within his job descriptions with his employer, and that Walker did not breach any independent duty owed Channel.” The court also found the family failed to show “a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Walker breached any duty owed to Channel independent of Cintas’ non-delegable duties as an employer.”
Actions, inactions didn’t trigger liability
On appeal a second time with the Missouri Court of Appeals, the family argued the circuit court erred in granting Walker summary judgment because he breached an independent duty of care that is separate and distinct from the employer’s non-delegable duty to provide a safe workspace.
The appeals court said the family was claiming Cintas established a safe working environment through its rules and training to address heat stress, but that Walker intentionally violated the rules in carrying out the details of his work and to force Channel to quit his job.
But it was Channel’s work with Cintas, specifically his work-related exposure to extreme heat and dehydration, that caused his death, the appeals court stated. These conditions weren’t created by Walker.
Further, Walker’s decision to keep Channel on his route despite the heat can be attributed to the employer’s obligation to provide a safe workplace. His alleged failure to follow the company heat stress protocol was also “reasonably foreseeable” to the employer.
According to the appeals court, none of Walker’s actions or inactions could be “deemed transitory risks for which a co-employee might be liable under the common law.”
So, workers’ compensation benefits were the family’s sole remedy and the lawsuit was dismissed.