Structural collapse lawyers note that a costly crane collapse in Liverpool, England that permanently paralyzed the crane operator has been blamed on failures to properly calculate weight loads and to create a proper foundation for the huge tower crane. The heavy tower crane was being used in an industrial area redevelopment project called the Kings Dock Mill project. Two companies, Bowmer and Kirkland as the principal contractors and Bingham and Davies Ltd. as the structural engineers, are being held accountable for the disastrous collapse that cost one father of four his mobility and cost millions in structural damages when the crane collapsed on the adjacent Chandlers Wharf apartment complex.
56-ton counterweights went through the apartment complex roof. The structural collapse lawyers at Denena & Points emphasize that fortunately, most residents of the complex were away at work, and no injuries to Chandlers Wharf residents resulted from the collapse.
The crane operator was hurled from the crane’s cab 200 feet up in the air when the crane pulled loose from its foundation and toppled backward. Miraculously, the crane operator survived. But his injuries were extensive, and he has no memory of the accident. He was unable to testify in court proceedings regarding the disaster. His injuries included: a fractured skull, a broken shoulder, some crush injuries on his left side, multiple broken ribs, two serious fractures to his sternum, paralysis to his legs, and severe spinal injuries.
The prosecution team in the crane collapse injury case pointed to serious miscalculations regarding the crane’s foundations and to safety breaches that resulted in poor construction of the crane’s base. 4 underground columns of concrete were to be bolstered by a metal reinforcement bar to form the foundation for the tower crane in the Kings Dock Mill project. But instead, the decision was taken to drill four 20-millimeter steel dowels into the foundation structure in order to make them fit. Unfortunately, this rendered the crane foundation dangerously unstable and made it insufficient to support the weight and movement of the crane and its loads above. The prosecutor stated that it was a question of “when” rather than “if” the crane would collapse.
This is because shearing forces from the crane’s movement would have tended to gradually pull apart metal fasteners securing the crane to its base. And indeed, witnesses reported that a loud rumbling noise heralded the crane’s collapse as it wobbled and then buckled from the base, finally toppling over backwards and sending the crane operator into a dramatic, near fatal fall.
Our structural collapse lawyers understand that the stress loads generated by the crane’s operation were simply too great for the connections between the 4 piles and the pile cap that formed the base of the crane. The shearing forces caused the feet of the tower crane to lift. Finally, the feet lifted too far and cause the entire crane to buckle and overturn. A large part of the blame has fallen on Bingham Davies’ erroneous calculations regarding the loads that would be generated on the piles. The prosecutor said, “This case concerns corporate failure – one of the clearest cases of its kind.” Learn more about the construction of tower cranesthrough our structural collapse lawyers’ post on the topic.