As victims of balcony collapses begin to seek compensation for injuries, there are more lawsuits being filed for negligence and construction defects against property owners or contractors. In some cases, the owners are aware of structural defects or maintenance problems, but still fail to act and maintain a safe balcony. This can be a problem if tenants are not informed about weight limits or structural weaknesses, and then have an accident when visitors congregate on the balcony.
Should Landlords on College Campuses Foresee Balconies Becoming Overloaded?
It can be a common occurrence on college campuses for fraternity houses, apartments and condos to be host to frequent student parties. The tenants are usually students as well, and may not be aware of any structural problems with balconies or terraces. Depending on the weather, it is predictable for students at a party to gather outside on a balcony, and often there are food and drink stations located there.
If a landlord rents to students, it is easily foreseeable that the student would host parties and that more than one or two visitors might gather on a balcony. For this reason, there is at least a duty to warn tenants of possible hazards, and the only sure way to avoid liability is to keep the balcony maintained and in line with local zoning and construction standards. Posting warning signs would also be prudent, so that invitees would also be on notice that there are specific limits to the number of people that a balcony could support.
California Fraternity House Balcony Collapse
A recent balcony collapse at a college fraternity house in California, caused one victim to suffer a broken pelvis as the balcony fell on top of her and pinned her under the debris. The lawsuit names the property management company as well as the owner as defendants, and claim that they knew of the structural weakness caused by rotting wood, but did nothing to correct the problem.
A comment by the property manager shows how some landlords fail to take responsibility for these types of hazards, saying: “…if the tenants knew the balcony was unsafe would they pile so many people on to it? “It appears like a clear misuse of the premise.” While this is may be true, it appears to be a clear attempt to avoid responsibility for maintenance. In other words, ‘they knew our rental properties were hazardous, so they needed to be more careful.’
A property owner cannot avoid liability by shifting the blame to a tenant if the owner was aware of defects before an accident. Regardless of whether a tenant knows of a safety problem (and in this case they repeatedly asked the owner to repair the balcony), the owner continues to have a duty to provide reasonably safe premises. Tenants should of course warn visitors or otherwise protect them from known hazards. In this case, the tenants were not named as defendants in the lawsuit since the victim did not think it was their fault.
In 2012, a balcony collapsed during a graduation party in Montgomery, Alabama, injuring eight people. A jury recently awarded the victims a total of almost $25 million for their injuries, underscoring the need for property owners to understand the kind of liability that can result from this type of accident. In this case the owner was not even present or involved, but we assume he was the one held accountable.
The graduation party was being hosted at an apartment complex, and there were more than 50 people in attendance. It is estimated that there were 30 to 40 people on the balcony at the time of the collapse. The owner of the apartment had let a friend use his house for the party, and had been informed only 12-15 people would be in attendance. Apparently, the group on the balcony had gathered in one spot (maybe around a food or drink station), which overloaded the support structure for the balcony.
Damages Awarded to Four Victims
The only eight people of the large group on the balcony fell 12 feet to the ground, and several suffered broken legs from the impact. One victim required extensive hospitalization and rehabilitation for his injuries. $250,000 of the damage award was punitive damages, but there is no disclosure of who was found liable for the accident. One can assume that the homeowner’s insurance will cover the claim depending on the policy limits in place.
The nearly $25 million in damages was awarded to the victims by a jury in a circuit court trial and the award was allocated among only four victims as follows:
It appears that only victims with significant injuries were compensated by the award, and the amounts depended on the extent of those injuries and their effect on the individual. In cases, like this damage awards can be formulated based on several types of costs:
As in this case, a jury can also award punitive damages to punish the defendant for their lack of care and failure to prevent the accident. The punitive damages seem insignificant in this case given the other damage amounts awarded. However, the jury appears to have been sympathetic to the victims based on the amounts awarded for their injuries, although it is hard to know the exact formula used to arrive at the award.
In any event, it is interesting to see that a balcony collapse case can bring such significant compensation even when the group of people easily exceeded any reasonable estimate of the balcony’s load capacity. Nonetheless, in cases like this, a property owner’s failure to monitor the situation or provide adequate warnings can lead to liability. A balcony that is overloaded presents a clear danger to anyone present, and it is the owner’s duty to make efforts to anticipate and prevent any type of collapse that would injure visitors to their property.
There is a new piece of federal legislation being proposed that would give financial incentives to whistleblowers who expose safety defects in autos. The legislation is in response to the recent wave of auto defects, some of which were concealed by automakers for up to ten years. It would allow any whistleblower to share in the penalty payments that an auto company may be forced to make as a result of failing to disclose a known defect.
Whistleblowers To Be Rewarded
The legislation appears to have bi-partisan support, and would reward a broad class of whistleblowers including:
If any one from this class of whistleblowers shares original information on defects or reporting violations, then they could receive up to 30% of penalties levied against the automaker. For example, last year General Motors paid a fine of $35 million for failing to report the ignition switch defect that has claimed 379 lives to date. This incentive for a whistleblower to come forward may be the type of insider scrutiny that the industry needs, since auto industry executives seem to be free of conscience when it come to disclosing life threatening defects in their vehicles.
It is encouraging to see that car dealerships are included within the scope of the legislation, since many dealers are the first ones to become aware of problems with their own customers’ cars. Further, many automakers penalize dealers for disclosing to the public or media any suspected defects, and sometimes refuse to reimburse the dealer for the cost of repairs. This will finally put car dealerships on the side of consumers, and they can play a role in preventing needless injuries and deaths due to defects.
What Are The Repercussions for Whistleblowers?
The role of whistleblower can be complicated, especially for an employee who relies on their job to make a living. There is a real concern of retaliation against an employee who make expose violations, such as job loss, pay cuts and even disgruntled actions by other employees who may see the defect revelation as a threat to their own livelihood. However, there should be provisions for anonymity in the reporting process, and if the reward is significant enough then income may not be a problem.
This type of whistleblower legislation is similar to those used by the SEC and IRS, but in the case of auto defects it may be life saving. It does raise the question of why such a law is needed, and whether concealing defects is just business as usual at automakers. The fact that federal legislators have to enlist the aid of those with access to vehicles and parts illustrates just how far this practice has gone in the auto industry. This is not a simple matter of an unknown defect creating a single accident. This law is the result of the habit of automakers to sell defective cars for years at a time, without ever informing the consumer that their life may be in danger.
Customers at amusement parks assume that safety inspections are taken care of by park owners and state regulators, but recent revelations of inadequate safety precautions has some customers feeling they should conduct their own research. There are no real ways to do that other than conduct actual physical inspections of a ride, since many records and permits are never displayed for public view.
How Does a Park Customer Research Ride Safety?
This fact was underscored by comments from one official in the state of Tennessee when asked how parents should respond to unknown risks: “If you’re going to take some kind of ride where you are putting yourself in danger a little bit…I would do some research on your own.” This is quite a statement from a government official who is supposed to be regulating the industry, and overseeing safety inspections. However, she did not offer any real ideas on how to do that research.
When asked about the department for state safety inspections her response was: “Not only did they not have any staff, but they did not seem to know exactly how many amusement rides there were, how many they’re supposed to be keeping up with.” Those are not exactly reassuring words for those who are thinking about a day of fun at the amusement park.
Here are the recommendations for anyone thinking of getting on a roller coaster or any other type of thrill ride:
This list sounds more like a job description for a ride supervisor and safety inspector. The task of ensuring safety should not really fall on the shoulders of those who pay high ticket prices for amusement parks. And it does raise the question of what to do if one suspects a ride is unsafe. Leave the park? Tell other customers nearby? Alert park owners? Call state regulators? In other words, if customers are responsible for safety, how far does that extend?
Who is Liable for Lack of Safety Inspections?
Liability for amusement park injuries is not always clear. Often, a customer will contribute to an accident by not following instructions, entering restricted areas or otherwise increasing the hazard through their own actions. However, amusement park owners and employees are the only ones in a position to inspect and maintain rides for safety, including the training and conduct of ride operators.
It is a concern when state regulators begin to suggest that customers at parks should be responsible for their own research and inspection processes. This situation would be similar to suggesting that new car owners should have their vehicles inspected for potentially defective parts.
Any business that offers goods or services in the marketplace has a duty to provide a reasonable level of safety and oversight. Government regulations exist to provide standards that define what is ‘safe’ or not. Failure to inspect, maintain records or otherwise ensure safety is not really the customer’s fault.
The well-publicized auto recall record in 2014 has many people wondering what is happening with the car industry. During an age where both federal regulations and class action liability suits are increasing, it would seem that automakers should be taking notice of the financial cost of poor design and manufacturing practices. Despite the record number of recalls, traffic accident statistics show that traffic deaths have declined over 25% the past 10 years, although much of that decline could be attributed to strict seat belt laws and drunk driving awareness campaigns.
Financial Costs for Automakers
Some of the costs of selling defective autos are starting to mount for automakers. Federal regulations allow for a $35 million fine for each violation of failing to report a defect (which the NHTSA is trying to raise to $300 million), and there have been recent criminal fraud and personal liability suits against major automakers. Toyota Motor Company paid a $1.2 billion settlement for criminal fraud last year for concealing defects in its vehicles. This was following a $1.6 billion class action settlement to compensate vehicle owners for loss of value due to defects. These two cases don’t even include any claims for personal injury or death from victims of defective autos, and those types of cases are sure to eclipse anything seen so far.
When Will Liability Suits Begin to Change Corporate Behavior?
The threat of liability suits still carry the greatest threats to automakers who believe that profit carries a higher value than customer safety. One of the seminal auto defect cases in history is the now famous Ford “Pinto” lawsuit, where it was revealed that the maker of that vehicle engaged in a statistical analysis of the cost of making a safe car versus the cost of potential liability. The accountants won the day, and it was decided to keep the gas tank in the rear of the vehicle even though the company knew that explosions and death would result from a rear end collision. The case served to raise public awareness of auto defects and put automakers on notice that damage awards for concealed defects could easily exceed their statistical analysis.
Product liability law and personal injury suits have evolved in the past 30 years to become the chief means of protecting victims from unknown dangers in autos. Without the threat of a lawsuit, automakers would have no incentive to make safer cars. It will be interesting to see how far the class action and wrongful deaths suits will go for GM, Toyota and Honda, based on the consistent and egregious concealment of life-threatening defects in their vehicles. Perhaps someday consumer safety will overcome the allure of shareholder return and executive bonuses, and it may have to reach a point of actually putting executives in prison for their role in causing innocent loss of life. That may seem like an extreme remedy, but for family members of victims killed by decisions made by corporate leaders, the punishment might just fit.
The National Transportation Safety Board is weighing in on the use of hands-free phones by drivers of large 18-wheelers. The NTSB says the use of hands-free phones can distract drivers and cause accidents on the highways. There is a current ban on the phones by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but the NTSB believes further regulation is needed.
This type of driver distraction was illustrated in 2013 in Maryland, when a truck failed to hear an approaching train when crossing a railroad track. The driver was in the habit of listening for the sound of the train’s horn before crossing, but on that occasion a call came in on his hands-free phone. He could not hear the sound of the horn over the phone call, and crossed the track at the moment the train arrived. The was a resulting derailment and explosion from flammable materials on the train, causing a hazmat fire.
The issue is whether the use of any type of phone, radio or communication device is a safety hazard in large trucks, where a moment’s distraction can result in a catastrophic accident. The hands-free devices are popular due to the fact that a driver keeps both hands on the wheel while talking on the phone. Nonetheless, the in-cab speaker of the phone can pose a problem if a driver cant hear horns, sirens or emergency signals.
The prevalence of cell phones, texting and internet all create potential hazards on the highway. It is tempting to pass the long hours on the road in phone conversations or other electronic communication, but this habit can be perilous for the long distance trucker. It is all too easy to get caught up in a conversation, and lose concentration on the road and surrounding traffic.
In the incident in Maryland there were additional factors in the crash such as inadequate driver training, poor vehicle maintenance and the driver’s long hours behind the wheel. All of these elements contributed to the accident, which now has caught the attention of federal regulators.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of a large truck accident caused by cell phone use, you may have a case for recovery of damages. It is clearly negligent in the modern age to allow wireless phone conversations distract the driver of a multi-ton truck. The danger is multiplied if the truck is carrying hazardous material, and the driver’s attention is compromised by idle phone chatter. These types of cases are sure to increase as the intolerance for needless truck accidents rises across the nation.
In the state of Texas, trucks carrying hazardous materials must follow designated haz-mat routes to safely pass through population centers. However, the routes are only mandatory for cities with a population of 850,000 or more, excluding many mid-size cities. The route maps haz-mat direct trucks away from schools and other population dense areas, and without them truckers are left to decide on their own which route to take.
Haz-Mat Route Requirements Are Too Relaxed
For example, Corpus Christie does not have haz-mat routes although many consider it to be a significant Texas city. This is the case despite the fact that a half million trucks a year carry hazardous materials through Corpus Christie. Smaller cities and towns can elect to create the routes if they want to, and Crockett, Texas with a population of 6600 has a designated highway loop for haz-mat trucks. It is hard to understand why a large city would not make the effort to create a route for this type of cargo when it is clearly in the public interest. The shale oil industry has increased the number of haz-mat trucks on the road, who are often carrying chemicals or other waste products as cargo.
Lack of Haz-Mat Routes Compounds the Risk of Accidents
The need for these routes is amplified by the behavior of truck drivers who are pressed into working long hours by their employers with vehicles in need of repair. Truckers may spend as many as 70 hours a week behind the wheel, and are often using energy drinks or stimulants to stay awake and meet delivery deadlines. Still, it is all too common for these drivers to fall asleep at the wheel, or exceed posted speed limits, which could mean catastrophe if an accident were to occur inside a large town or city.
Additional safety concerns arise surrounding the maintenance of these haz-mat trucks. Federal transportation data revealed that haz-mat trucks operating in Texas had the following repair issues:
These are disturbing numbers considering the threat to public safety if a truck is involved in an accident. One would think that the trucking companies would have an interest in keeping their trucks in good repair to avoid accidents and liability for injuries. However, the opposite appears to be true and there are numerous reports of false repair reports and defective vehicles being sent back out on the roads for another delivery.
Cities Need to Take Responsibility for Haz-Mat Routes
The transportation of hazardous materials is part of many industries in the United States and for this reason there are strict requirements on driver training, truck inspections and using haz-mat routes. However, cities must participate in creating the routes even if not required, as one way to protect citizens from potential spills of hazardous materials. Texas enjoys the economic benefits of the boom in the oil and gas industry and it is time to use some of those funds to create systems of regulations and enforcement to protect residents from harm.
The collapse of balconies that cause injuries are not solely a problem in the United States, as several recent incidents reveal. Although personal injury and liability laws vary between countries, the issues of responsibility and causation are the same.
Recent International Balcony Collapse Stories
In Australia, a balcony on a home collapsed and fell 15 feet, trapping victims under the debris. One of the women involved had her arm severed by the collapse. Although the exact cause is unknown the incident occurred during Christmas holidays, and an Australian official noted that the most balcony collapses happen during holiday periods when families and friends gather together on unstable structures.
Last year in London, two people were killed and six injured in a balcony collapse that happened under unusual circumstances. Two men had been delivering sofas to a building under renovation, and apparently the weight of the sofas on the railing of the balcony caused it to collapse. They were trying to hoist the sofas over the balcony railing with ropes when the entire structure gave way.
In Canada, a balcony collapsed during a house party, sending six people to the hospital. The balcony was part of an addition to a home that was designed to convert it into two apartments. Photos of the building show the balcony as an awkward appendage at the top of the building, with shaky support beams. At the time of construction even neighbors complained about it, and observed that it appeared unsafe.
In Scotland, both a second and third floor balcony collapsed at the same time, injuring 15 people attending a party. The party took place on the second floor balcony, which was somehow attached to the third floor balcony. When the second floor balcony collapsed under the weight of the crowd, it brought the third floor balcony crashing down on top of them. This is clearly an instance of poor design when two balconies support systems are so interconnected that there is a simultaneous collapse.
Finally, back in London a landlord was fined over $50,000 for failure to maintain balconies on a property that he owned. Apparently, the owner had known of the weak and defective balcony for five years prior to the accident, but failed to make any repairs to correct the situation. This incident underscores how building owners can neglect balconies as potential safety hazards, and can be reluctant to spend the money to repair the hazardous structures.
In all of these cases, there was a combination of poor design or maintenance along with failure to take responsibility for safety by owners or tenants of buildings. Even if a tenant invites too many guests on to a balcony, they have some fault for failing to recognize the safety issue. Local laws on personal injury and liability vary, but almost every country has some type of regulation and building codes that must be adhered to for the purpose of public safety.
In our continuing analysis of the multiple hazards posed by large trucks and their cargo, we discovered that there is an emerging basis for lawsuits when loads that are oversize cause damages to motorists or property. Trucks are limited on weight and height for safety reasons, but there is always the temptation by trucking companies to add a bit more cargo to increase the profitability of the load being transported. However, when this conscious disregard of safety regulations creates an accident, then there may be liability by the company for any damages.
Truck In Washington Collapses Freeway Bridge
As an example, in 2013 an over height truck in Washington State caused a collision where the result was a collapsed bridge on a major interstate. The truck had slammed into the overhead braces of the bridge due to its height in excess of those permitted, and the bridge collapsed into the water. Two vehicles on the bridge at the time also fell into the river, causing injuries but no deaths.
What makes this accident even more unbelievable is that the tractor trailer had a pilot car for its already oversize load, but apparently the pilot car driver was talking on the phone and did not notice the height restrictions for the bridge. There were additional excuses made by the driver for the accident including:
All of this points to driver negligence, especially since the load was already oversize and using a pilot car. Washington State also thought that the driver was negligent and filed a $17 million lawsuit to recover the cost of the bridge repair. If the trucking company is only insured for the federal minimum of $750,000 then they may be having some difficulty paying any type of court award in this case.
The prevalence of negligent or outright intentional violation of safety and highway regulations by trucking companies is becoming apparent. Whether its disregard for driver rest and safety standards, hauling of unlabeled hazardous cargo, failure to inspect trucks for safety defects or simple violation of highway permit limitations, trucking companies seem to view safety regulations as just another barrier to making money.
The fact that these laws and regulations are designed to protect motorists on the highways are treated like an insignificant detail, and as anyone who has encountered an impatient or arrogant trucker can attest, these drivers seem to think the nation’s highways are there solely for their transport work. Only the threat of personal or criminal liability will be sufficient to change the culture of the trucking business, since federal regulators have little motivation to make the laws more stringent.
Despite the strong public policy to manage the safety of transporting hazardous waste using large trucks, there are actually federal rules that exempt certain types of cargo from hazardous waste labeling. For example, ‘drilling waste’ which can include water or soil from shale oil ‘fracking’ does not have to be labeled at all. This is a clear danger to anyone who may encounter a truck accident and not be aware that the cargo contains both environmental and health hazards.
Hazardous Material Labeling Is Not Required For Oil Drilling Waste
This type of ‘residual waste’ is exempt from standard federal regulations that require clear labeling of hazardous material cargo. Even if the water or soil contains oil, chemicals or other by-products it can travel the roadways undetected. In states such as Pennsylvania and Texas where drilling activities are on the increase, there is a substantial amount of truck traffic that is carrying these materials and exposing motorists to unknown dangers.
There was a recent accident in Pennsylvania where a truck cargo that was labeled “fresh water” was actually leaking oil-blackened liquid onto the highway. This is not an isolated incident, as that state’s drilling industry generated 32 million barrels of liquid waste product last year. It is conceivable that the majority of that hazardous liquid is being transported without labels of the true content, and often across state lines.
What is the Effect of a Lack of Regulations?
Because there is an exception to the federal rules for drilling waste, failure to label cargo could be defended as meeting a defined standard of care for trucking and oil companies. For example, if injuries or death were to result from unlabeled cargo, and a lawsuit were filed for compensation, the company could state that it was operating within federal guidelines and met its responsibility. Failure to warn motorists or others who encounter the drilling waste is not a clear violation of the company’s duty, at least as defined by federal law.
Simply following lax federal guidelines is not a sure barrier to corporate liability, but it does very little to protect the safety of motorists when oil companies are allowed to transport hazardous waste without informing the public. It is still another example of how certain modes of interstate trucking and transportation are given favorable treatment over the safety of other motorists or residents near a highway. Any measures to make these rules more stringent are often met by an outcry from the affected industry that they will be driven out of business under stricter regulations.
In any case, oil and trucking companies continue to have a responsibility to carry out their activities with a reasonable standard of safety, and any disregard for innocent life should carry some degree of fault. Without this, corporations can act solely from a standpoint of profit and earnings and will not alter their practices if there is an associated expense. Only the threat of liability remains to encourage more care in transporting hazardous materials, and those cases should be pursued vigorously where injuries or death are the result.