Crane collapse in Manhattan linked to previous disasters

Crane collapse in Manhattan linked to previous disasters

The Tower Crane Incident: Examining the History and Implications

In a scene reminiscent of past crane collapses, a recent incident involving a tower crane has once again raised concerns over safety and regulations in New York City. The tower crane, owned by New York Crane and Equipment Corp., was hoisting concrete to the 36th story of a luxury high-rise when a fire broke out in the machine’s cab. The ensuing flames burned through a cable, causing the 180-foot-long boom to come crashing to the ground. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured in the incident, but it served as a stark reminder of previous crane accidents.

Two of the city’s most devastating crane collapses occurred in 2008, both involving cranes owned by New York Crane and Equipment Corp. These incidents claimed the lives of nine individuals and prompted the city to reevaluate its inspection and regulation processes for tower cranes. Despite the tragic outcome, the same crane company was involved in an additional accident later that year when a construction worker fell to his death while dismantling a crane owned by another company. Interestingly, the same crane operator, Chris Van Duyne, whose license had been suspended for eight months, was operating the crane that caught fire in the recent incident.

Questions naturally arise about the safety practices and continued operation of a company with such a history of accidents. City Council Member Pierina Sanchez, who heads the council’s committee on housing and building, expressed her concerns regarding the involvement of a company with a record of safety failures in a major incident. She questioned the validity of their license to operate in New York City and why they were still allowed to do business.

To address these concerns, New York implemented strict crane requirements in the aftermath of the 2008 collapses. These regulations, which go beyond those of other states, involve obtaining multiple city-specific licenses and carrying high insurance liability. While the intention was to improve safety, industry experts suggest that this approach inadvertently limits the entry of new companies into the market, effectively allowing a few players to dominate the industry.

Stephen Smith, the executive director of the Center for Building in North America, points out that crane collapses are relatively infrequent. Therefore, when accidents occur repeatedly with the same company, it reflects poorly on them. Smith raises the question of whether the stringent regulations are inadvertently preventing more competent operators and firms from entering the market.

• July may be the hottest month in 120,000 years.
• Power struggle over control of Nashville International Airport
• Medicare covers acupuncture only in certain cases, but finding prov...

New York Crane and Equipment Corp., founded by James Lomma, commonly referred to as the “King of Cranes,” has long been one of the city’s top crane providers. They have been involved in major projects such as the Hudson Yards development and the new World Trade Center. However, the Queens-based company has had its share of legal troubles. In 2008, one of their cranes collapsed on Manhattan’s east side, resulting in the tragic death of seven people. Although a crane rigger was initially blamed for the accident, he was acquitted of manslaughter charges, and the blame shifted to factors such as bad welding. Two months later, another crane owned by Lomma collapsed, causing the death of the crane operator and a construction worker. This collapse was attributed to a faulty bearing manufactured by a Chinese company that had expressed doubts about its product.

In the aftermath of these events, Lomma was sued by the families of the victims and ordered to pay $35 million for his decisions that led to the collapse. He filed for bankruptcy and passed away in 2019, leaving the company in the hands of Sal Isola, the current manager. The company has faced additional allegations over the years, including poor maintenance practices that allegedly contributed to a worker falling to his death in 2004.

The recent incident with the tower crane has once again raised questions about the safety of crane operations in New York City. The investigation into the cause of the fire is ongoing, and no accusations of wrongdoing have been made against the crane company or its operator at this time. However, it highlights the importance of continuously evaluating safety protocols and license issuance for companies involved in such high-risk operations.

In conclusion, the tower crane incident serves as a catalyst for reflection and examination of the regulations and practices governing crane operations in New York City. While the city’s efforts to enhance safety are commendable, there is a need to strike a balance between stringent requirements and the participation of competent operators and firms. Ultimately, the goal should be to prioritize the safety of both workers and the public without stifling innovation and healthy competition in the industry.