Could Estates of 8 Workers Killed by Tornado Sue Candle Factory?

What Do You Think?

Employers and supervisors are generally protected from personal injury lawsuits if they maintain workers’ compensation coverage. But those protections may cease if a supervisor injures someone while acting outside the scope of employment. But how extreme does a supervisor’s behavior have to be to fall outside the scope of employment? A tragic case involving workers who were trapped in a candle factory when a storm hit addresses that question.

This case began with an oncoming tornado. On the night of the storm, the employer notified employees that the storm would be there in three hours.

Understandably, many of the 110 employees on the job that night wanted to leave and find safe shelter. But according to those who represented some of the employees' estates, supervisors prevented the workers from leaving the factory during the three hours before the tornado arrived. The supervisors, according to the representatives, ordered the employees to keep working and threatened to fire them if they fled before the tornado struck. The representatives said that supervisors stood in the exits to prevent workers from fleeing. Those efforts were effective, according to the lawsuit; no employee left. In the ensuing tornado, many employees were injured and eight died.

The representatives sued the company and a supervisor in tort for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The company’s response was that the employees were injured in the course of employment and, consequently, the exclusive remedy provision barred their lawsuit. A trial court dismissed the case and the representatives appealed.

Under the exclusive remedy provision, workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for workplace injuries and deaths. This effectively immunizes employers and co-employees from personal injury lawsuits based on injuries that occurred within the scope of employment.

Could the representatives continue with their lawsuit?

A. Yes. The alleged blocking of the exits wasn’t in the scope of employment.

B. No. It was the supervisors’ job to ensure employees kept working. Thus, they were acting in the scope of employment.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Aliff v. Mayfield Consumer Products, LLC, No.  2025-CA-0691-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Div. 06/18/26, unpublished), which reversed the trial court’s decision.

The court pointed to claims that supervisors blocked exits to prevent employees from leaving and threatened them with termination if they left for safe shelter. Further, these alleged actions took place during the critical three-hour time period after the employer notified its workers of the tornado. 

“The alleged acts of physically blocking the factory doorways appear to be far removed from and not incidental to ordinary acts performed by supervisors within the scope of their employment at the factors. In fact, we can envision no ordinary duty of a supervisor that would require a supervisor to physically block employees from fleeing the factory hours before an impending tornado,” the court said.

While the employer said that supervisors were merely trying to get workers to shelter in place, the claims were sufficient to create a factual dispute for trial. The issue in dispute was, in part, whether supervisors were merely instructing them to shelter in place or physically blocking them from leaving for a safe shelter.

The appeals court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case.

Share This Article: