Wrongful Death

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Melissa Mesenbring v. Rollins, Inc.

Case No.: 23-2473

Officials: Scudder, St. Eve, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Wrongful Death

Derek Mesenbring, an employee of Industrial Fumigant Company, LLC (IFC), tragically died from inhaling a toxic dose of methyl bromide while at work. His widow, Melissa Mesenbring, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against IFC and its parent company, Rollins, Inc. Rollins, as the parent company, exercised some control over IFC’s financial goals and certain expenditures, and leased IFC’s facility. However, IFC independently managed its day-to-day operations, including safety protocols and regulatory compliance, and provided training to its employees on the safe handling of fumigants like methyl bromide.

The lawsuit was initially filed in Illinois state court but was transferred to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Mrs. Mesenbring later dismissed IFC from the lawsuit due to receiving workers’ compensation benefits, leaving Rollins as the sole defendant. Rollins then sought summary judgment, arguing that under Illinois law, it could not be held liable for IFC’s actions. The district court granted Rollins’ motion, concluding that Rollins did not direct any specific activity that made the accident foreseeable, nor did it control or participate in IFC’s training or use of methyl bromide, thereby rejecting liability for direct participation.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The appellate court agreed with the lower court’s interpretation of Illinois law, emphasizing that a parent company is generally not liable for its subsidiary’s actions unless it directs a specific activity foreseeably leading to harm. The court found that Rollins did not exceed the typical level of control expected in a parent-subsidiary relationship, nor did it specifically authorize or direct IFC’s practices with methyl bromide. Additionally, there was no evidence that Rollins could foresee safety risks resulting from its financial oversight of IFC. Therefore, the appellate court upheld the district court’s decision that Rollins could not be held liable for IFC’s conduct under a theory of direct participation.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/28/24

Full Text