By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1993, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m58 m86 c0493
Key point: Walk-in freezers
should be inspected periodically to ensure that they can be opened
from the inside. A church can be legally responsible for injuries
sustained by persons who are locked in a freezer and who are unable
to get out.
A North Carolina appeals court refused to
dismiss a church from a lawsuit brought by a 13-year-old girl who
was locked in a walk-in freezer in the church kitchen. Here are
the facts of this unfortunate case. An equipment company sold a
walk-in freezer to a local Baptist church. The freezer was "field
assembled" by the seller on the church's premises, and it was
tested to be sure that it operated properly. The inside of the
freezer door contained a label stating: "You are not locked in! The
manufacturer of this unit has equipped it with a . . . latch
assembly. You cannot be locked in, even if the door closes behind
you and the cylinder is locked. By pushing the inside release on
the inside of this unit, you many operate the latch and open the
door." The persons who assembled the freezer tested the door latch
assembly to be sure that the freezer could be opened from the
inside by pressing a red release button. They concluded that the
door worked properly, and could be opened form inside. One evening,
some eight months later, a 13-year-old girl (the "victim") was
working as a volunteer at the registration desk to the church's
"family life center" (a gymnasium). Her duties included checking
persons in and out of the facility, checking out sports equipment,
and answering the telephone. Shortly before 9:00 o'clock that
evening, the victim went to the church's kitchen to get some ice
for a soft drink. She was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, but no
shoes. Once inside the kitchen, the victim heard a noise that she
thought came from the freezer. She opened the freezer door and
stepped inside. When she did, the freezer door closed behind her.
She immediately pushed the red release button on the inside of the
door, but the door would not open. She repeatedly attempted to open
the door, but her efforts were unsuccessful. She began banging on
the door with her hands and feet, pushing on the door with her
shoulder, and screaming. After an hour of futile attempts to open
the door or attract someone's attention, she became tired and sat
down. She had lost all feeling in her feet which were completely
white. Despite being tired, she continued to kick the door feebly.
Later that evening, someone discovered the victim in the freezer.
By that time, she had suffered severe frostbite to her feet and
legs. Paramedics took her to a local hospital where she remained
for nearly two months and where she had five operations. During the
first operation, all ten of her toes were amputated. During later
operations, she received several skin grafts. The victim and her
mother filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, seller, and
church. Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants
were negligent in the construction, assembly, and supervision of
the freezer. The church asked to be dismissed from the lawsuit, but
a trial court disagreed. However, the court did dismiss the seller.
The church appealed the trial court's refusal to dismiss it from
the case, and the victim appealed the court's dismissal of the
seller. A state appeals court rejected both contentions, and
permitted the lawsuit to proceed against the church but not the
seller. This case illustrates the importance of periodic
inspections of potentially dangerous equipment and facilities on
church premises, to ensure that all safety equipment and devices
are working properly. Crews v. W. A. Brown & Son, Inc., 416
S.E.2d 924 (N.C. App. 1992).