In April 2023, a Dallas County jury awarded over $860 million to the family of a woman killed when a crane collapsed on her apartment complex. The jury’s award against real estate developer, Greystar Development & Construction, LP (Greystar), was $160 million more than the Plaintiffs requested. How did this happen?

During a severe thunderstorm on June 9, 2019, a tower crane collapsed on the Elan City Lights Apartment Community in Dallas. The collapse injured several residents of the Elan and killed Kiersten Smith. Shortly after the collapse, Smith’s family sued Greystar and two other entities, Greystar Development & Construction, LP – Gabriella Tower Contractor Series (Contractor Series) and Gabriella Tower, LLC (Gabriella), alleging the three entities were part of a joint enterprise. The family also sued the crane company, Bigge Crane and Rigging (Bigge), and the crane operator, Robert Hilty (Hilty).

The lawsuit alleged that the crane was attached to The Gabriella apartment complex, which was under construction, owned and operated by the Greystar entities. Greystar rented the crane from Bigge. At the time of the collapse, Hilty had worked over 80 hours that week and did not put the crane in weathervane. The Plaintiffs argued that, had the crane been in weathervane, it would have been allowed to rotate naturally with the wind direction during the storm, which would have removed pressure on the structure and prevented the collapse. Bigge argued that its rental contract with Greystar made both the crane and the operator the responsibility of Greystar and, as a result, Bigge was not liable for the collapse.

The jury agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument that Hilty was a “borrowed employee” of Greystar who was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collapse. Generally, employers are liable for the negligence of their employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. In considering whether Hilty was an employee of Greystar or Bigge, the jury was instructed that an employee is not an employee of his general employer once they become a “borrowed employee.” An employee becomes a borrowed employee of another employer if the other employer or their agents “have the right to direct and control the details of the particular work inquired about.” Using this instruction, the jury found that Hilty was an employee of Greystar at the time of the collapse.

Because the jury found that Hilty was an employee of Greystar, it was instructed not to consider the acts or omissions of Hilty in determining the negligence of Bigge. However, the jury was allowed to consider the acts or omissions of Hilty in determining the negligence of Greystar. The jury determined that Greystar’s negligence caused the death of Kiersten Smith.

The jury was also asked to consider whether Smith’s death resulted from Greystar’s gross negligence. The jury was instructed that Greystar could be grossly negligence because of an act by Hilty only if (1) Greystar authorized Hilty’s actions, or (2) Hilty was employed in a managerial capacity by Greystar and acting within the scope of his employment, or (3) Greystar ratified or approved Hilty’s actions. The jury found that Greystar acted in a grossly negligent manner.

After several hours of deliberation, the jury ultimately awarded approximately $360 million in actual damages and $500 million in exemplary damages against Greystar. The jury did not find the crane company, Bigge liable for any damages.

The nuclear verdict is certain to face scrutiny from the trial court and, if not resolved beforehand, by the Dallas Court of Appeals.  While that occurs, the verdict stands as yet another reminder of the large damages juries in historically conservative jurisdictions such as Dallas are awarding plaintiffs in the post-pandemic era.

The attorneys in our Austin and Dallas offices are available to answer any questions you may have. Please contact us at info@gstexlaw.com.

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2023.  All rights reserved.  Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.