Family must show lawn worker not killed for personal reasons

The family of a city maintenance worker who was shot and killed while mowing the lawn of an abandoned house will have to show that he was not assaulted for personal reasons to obtain death benefits, an appellate court held Friday.

In City of Birmingham v. Jenkins, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in Montgomery on Friday unanimously reversed the award of benefits to the worker’s family for further factfinding, though the court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of the city’s motion for summary judgment on the case.

Grady Jenkins, an employee for the City of Birmingham’s horticulture department, was shot and killed Nov. 1, 2017, while mowing and clearing trash from unoccupied residential lots as part of his job duties for the day. There were no witnesses to the shooting and cash that was in Mr. Jenkins’ pocket at the time was undisturbed.

His widow, Keishana Jenkins, filed a complaint against the city seeking workers compensation benefits on behalf of herself and her minor children, which was denied on the basis that the “assault” did not arise out of his employment. She then filed suit seeking benefits. Over the course of discovery, workers testified that the neighborhood in which the horticulture crew was working on the day of the murder had a reputation for a high number of violent crimes, and that gunshots would sometimes be heard while the crew was working there.

The city moved to strike evidence on the record and also moved for summary judgment, but a trial court denied the motions and awarded dependent workers compensation benefits to the Jenkins family. The City of Birmingham appealed.

The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the city’s motion to strike or its motion for summary judgment, but held that its award of benefits to the Jenkins family was premature.

Although the city argued that the trial court should have granted its motion to strike the deposition transcripts of three city workers for hearsay as well as strike excerpts from a detective and city safety worker for mentioning city homicide rates, the appellate court dismissed this claim, noting that the city was represented at all of the depositions and allowed to question the witnesses.

The appellate court also held that the Jenkins family has presented enough circumstantial evidence to show that the assault was “not truly an unexplained assault” and “had a definite causal connection to the employment” to withstand the City of Birmingham’s motion for summary judgment. However, the court held that the evidence was “not conclusive as to the issue of compensability of the death of the employee.”

The appellate court noted that the possibility that Mr. Jenkins had been assaulted for personal reasons had not been decisively excluded and that the “uncertain state of the evidence might lead a reasonable fact-finder” to conclude otherwise.