The building shell for a privately owned airplane hangar in Boise, Idaho was supposed to be completed by January 31, 2024. Instead, the hangar collapsed, killing three and injuring several others. The owner of the general contractor for the project, Big D Builders (BDB), was decapitated in the collapse. Two BDB employees, who were on a manlift hoisted 40 feet in the air installing bolts to secure the building rafters at the time of the collapse, were also killed.

On July 9, 2024, the families of the deceased workers filed a wrongful death lawsuit against BDB and three other construction companies involved in the project, alleging the companies were reckless, cut corners and failed to use appropriate materials for the construction of the project. The other construction companies named in the suit include the crane company, Inland Crane, Steel Building Systems (SBS), and Speck Steel. Plaintiffs allege these companies modified the project plans for the pre-engineered building to speed up construction, resulting in significant reduction in structural support. The modified plans, which were not approved by the City, called for approximately 30% less bracing than the City-approved plans.

Plaintiffs further allege that the companies fabricated their own cross bracing which did not conform to the prefabricated structure. Despite reports of “bowing beams” and “snapping cables” the day before the collapse, work continued on the day of the collapse, with winds at approximately 25-35 miles per hour. Plaintiffs allege the companies’ actions resulted in serious design and engineering defects, were exacerbated by strong winds, which ultimately caused the collapse.

Following an investigation of the collapse, OSHA released its findings in late July. OSHA Area Director David Kearns said, “[t]he company’s irresponsible construction methods left the aircraft hangar’s structure extremely vulnerable.” According to the OSHA report, BDB constructed the hangar without sufficient bracing or tensioned guy wires and BDB ignored numerous indications that the structure was unstable prior to the collapse. Some of those indications included visibly curved, bent, and wavy structural I-beams, unbalanced columns, and several snapped wire rope cables. BDB proceeded with the installation of 150-foot long bays on the project which were “visibly not straight.” Instead of installing additional bracing, straps were used to straighten the spans.  According to witnesses, cables popped and bracing began to come apart the day before the collapse. OSHA’s findings also included a lack of employee training and that construction equipment was allowed to operate in mud in standing water. As a result of its  findings, OSHA cited BDB for one willful violation and three serious violations of federal safety and proposed penalties of $198,586.

On the day of the collapse, the crane company, Inland Crane, removed three cranes from the site and left an older model crane, improperly tied to the structure, which was not rated for high winds. Following OSHA’s investigation, Inland Crane also received a citation for one serious safety violation, resulting in a fine of $10,163, for exposing workers to collapse hazards due to failures to ensure stability during the hangar erection process.

Plaintiffs’ allegations follow the predictable argument that the contractors placed profits over employee safety, recklessly speeding up the project with unsafe and insufficiently effective materials in an attempt to avoid delay damages from the owner. The tragic events, OSHA investigations and fines, and lawsuit are potent reminders that decisions on means and methods of construction and when and whether to perform work can have profound legal consequences.

The attorneys in our Austin and Dallas offices have significant experience with handling matters involving worksite accidents. If you should have any questions or comments, 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 as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2024.  All rights reserved.  Any authorized 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.