Worker trapped in freezer, dies during steam cleaning

Listen to this article

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.

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 involved 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, potentially by the decedent or someone at the facility, and 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. He was pulled out sometime after the cleaning cycle was completed, but he was no longer alive.

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 they were fixed. As such, 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 he had no reason to enter the freezer when he became trapped, and it was negligent of him to do so.

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 appropriate 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 the plaintiffs’ 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 far longer than the manufacturer claimed, in effect demonstrating that the defendant manufacturer failed to repair and replace the missing handle during servicing.

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 failure to comply with OSHA and industry standards.

Likewise, 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.

The plaintiffs also retained expert medical witnesses to establish the separate and distinct damages endured by the decedent and his two children. One of the plaintiffs’ medical experts was able to portray a credible timeline of the conscious pain and suffering experienced by the decedent.

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.

One of the children was an adult living in a foreign country and required an interpreter; the other never resided with his father and had multiple medical issues prior to the decedent’s death.

The case settled at mediation 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: Douglas K. Sheff, Kathy Jo Cook, Benjamin Duggan, Frank J. Federico Jr., Julie DeNardo and Peter Chandler, of Sheff & Cook, Boston; Christopher M. Jantzen of Jantzen & Associates, Boston (for the plaintiff)