Our website is made possible by displaying non-intrusive online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling or pausing your ad blocker.
Based on the New York City investigation and subsequent enforcement actions, some actions were taken, but they were not the same for every party.
1. Cross Country Construction LLC (crane user/operator)
The New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) issued a safety violation against Cross Country Construction and is seeking a US$25,000 penalty. The violation relates to safety obligations associated with the crane operation.
2. New York Crane & Equipment Corp. (crane owner)
The investigation was critical of New York Crane & Equipment Corp. It concluded that:
* the company did not implement Favelle Favco’s earlier recommended fire-safety measures (such as fire detection/suppression and enhanced inspection procedures),
* it also did not inform Cross Country Construction about those recommendations.
However, the DOB did not issue a penalty against New York Crane & Equipment Corp. According to the department, it could only issue violations to the entities that held the relevant permits for the construction site and crane use—in this case, the crane user and construction-site permit holders, not the leasing company.
3. General contractor (Monadnock Construction)
The DOB also issued several violations to the general contractor:
* One violation was dismissed.
* One was corrected shortly after the incident.
* One was upheld with a US$25,000 penalty, although the company has challenged it in court.
Why this matters for Favco
These findings are relevant because the investigation specifically noted that the crane owner did not adopt the manufacturer’s recommended safety measures, while Favelle Favco’s U.S. subsidiary was not identified by the investigation as the party responsible for causing the incident. That does not automatically resolve the civil lawsuits, but it provides an important part of Favco’s defence.
It is fairly common in a major US accident lawsuit to name multiple parties initially, even when an investigation points strongly toward the crane owner/operator.
But being named doesn’t mean Favco will pay.
In fact, if the official investigation clearly establishes that the owner/operator’s actions caused the incident and there was no crane manufacturing defect, that can be an important defence for Favco.
