• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Sign falls in airport and kills a young boy

cajun312

New Member
Remember this from a few months ago? Here is an update from the Houston Chronicle.

The family of a 10-year-old boy killed when a sign toppled over in the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport is suing the Houston-area company that made the sign as well as other contractors involved in its design,construction and installation.
Luke Bresette of Overland Park, Kan., died March 22 after being crushed by the arrival-departure sign that weighed at least 300 pounds, according to the Associated Press.
Fish Construction, Inc., of Stafford was hired to design, construct, assemble and install four such signs, known as Multiple User Flight Information Displays, or MUFIDs, according to the suit filed June 5 by Ryan and Heather Bresette, Luke Bresette's parents.
The suit, filed in Jefferson County, Ala., Circuit Court, names Fish Construction and eight other defendants, including Brasfield & Gorrie General Contractors Inc. and BLOC Global Services Group.
The Birmingham Airport Authority, which had undertaken a renovation of the airport, is not named as a defendant in the suit.
According to the complaint, Fish Construction created a detailed drawing of the signs showing precise materials and assembly, which were approved by other defendants.
Fish Construction allegedly modified the drawings to increase the thickness of the sign's front panel, which added to the sign's instability, according to the suit.
"All defendants knew or should have known that the flawed design, the improper modifications and the failure to secure or anchor the free-standing MUFIDs would result in instability and a foreseeable risk of fatal danger to the general public who would be utilizing the airport concourse," the suit states.
According to the suit, Brasfield & Gorrie and BLOC installed four of the signs.
While steps were taken to anchor three signs to the floor or wall, the fourth sign was left free-standing without any anchor to the floor, wall or ceiling, the suit states.
The fourth sign is the one that fell forward on members of the Bresette family, killing Luke and injuring his mother and two brothers, the suit states.
The suit, which requests a jury trial, seeks unspecified punitive damages.
Tim Dollar, of the Kansas City, Mo., law firm Dollar, Burns & Becker, issued a statement June 5 on behalf of the family:
"The Bresettes and their attorneys are committed to the integrity of the civil justice system and believe that all parties involved in the litigation should receive a fair trial. Accordingly, the Bresettes and their attorneys intend to refrain from further public comments about this litigation until the case is concluded," the statement said.
The family is also represented by Jeff Friedman of Birmingham.
An attorney representing Fish Construction did not immediately return a call for comment.
Brasfield & Gorrie and BLOC issued a joint statement on Thursday:
"Brasfield & Gorrie/BLOC acknowledges the recent lawsuit filed against our companies. The Bresette family has experienced a terrible tragedy, and we understand their decision to pursue answers from the parties involved in the design and construction of the airport terminal. To protect the privacy of all those involved, as well as the legal process, we cannot discuss the full details of the litigation matters," the statement said.
"For many years, Brasfield & Gorrie and BLOC have consistently earned their reputations as ethical and competent builders, and we are respected in the industry for our core values and commitment to doing the right thing. We are committed to addressing the issues surrounding the unfortunate accident at the airport through the legal system in a respectful and cooperative manner."
 

Moze

Active Member
''Fish Construction created a detailed drawing of the signs showing precise materials and assembly, which were approved by other defendants.
Fish Construction allegedly modified the drawings to increase the thickness of the sign's front panel, which added to the sign's instability, according to the suit.
"All defendants knew or should have known that the flawed design, the improper modifications and the failure to secure or anchor the free-standing MUFIDs would result in instability and a foreseeable risk of fatal danger to the general public who would be utilizing the airport concourse," the suit states.''

Drawings are modified and materials are changed all of the time. I don't understand why they seem to be even partially pointing to that as part of the problem. Regardless of how it was constructed - it wasn't anchored. Whoever did the installation is going to be held responsible I would think - not the manufacturer.
 

Billct2

Active Member
The others were anchored & this one wasn't- that should point the finger directly at the responsible party.
 

MikePro

New Member
everyone who touched a drawing and/or the sign will have to pay-up. it doesn't matter if ONE party is solely accountable... they go after everyone.
 

Moze

Active Member
I guess what I'm not clear on is if FCI installed the displays or subbed that out.

Agreed, the lawyers will go after compensation from whomever they think they can get it from. I thought there was mention that FCI manufactured the sign but a different company installed it. Maybe that's not the case. But FCI isn't new to airport displays. It's pretty much a given that their drawings would clearly call out an anchoring method, including anchor size, depth, etc. Assuming they subbed out the install, I would think their liability would be limited to the manufacturing end of things (providing various anchor points on the display). If they drew up the displays to include that and shipped them out built per the drawings and a subcontractor simply didn't anchor the display (which is what the report says) - I don't see how FCI could be held the least bit liable.

Dumbed down example: Free-standing ovens are shipped with anti-tip brackets. They usually mount to one of the feet of the oven or to the back of the oven and get anchored to the wall or floor. If too much weight is place on the oven door when it is opened, the bracket keeps the oven from tipping forward. If the installer fails to install the anti-tip bracket - they're liable for any injuries, not the manufacturer.
 

signage

New Member
Moze if they (do not/did not) state the the out come of not installing them they can then be held liable. Just supplying then and showing how they are to be installed does not leave them out of the litigation! This is what lawyers do all the time, they find the loop hole to drag every on into to get the most they can.

example: in the early 1970 two guys employed by a Church had a log row of hedges to trim, one of the two guy came up with the idea to use the lawn mower to do it. They measured the space between the blade and the deck and saw their was enough space for their fingers to clear the blade. So they removed the handle, started the mower and picked it up (one guy on one side of the hedges the other guy on the other side) they proceeded to trim the hedges. Then the mower struck a limb that was larger and caused the mower deck to flex cutting off the mens fingers. They sued the lawn mower company and won because it didn't say that if the blade struck something that the mower deck would flex and could cut ones fingers if placed in the space between blade and deck. That is why all mowers now have a decal showing blade hitting fingers and cutting them.
 

John Butto

New Member
Moze if they (do not/did not) state the the out come of not installing them they can then be held liable. Just supplying then and showing how they are to be installed does not leave them out of the litigation! This is what lawyers do all the time, they find the loop hole to drag every on into to get the most they can.

example: in the early 1970 two guys employed by a Church had a log row of hedges to trim, one of the two guy came up with the idea to use the lawn mower to do it. They measured the space between the blade and the deck and saw their was enough space for their fingers to clear the blade. So they removed the handle, started the mower and picked it up (one guy on one side of the hedges the other guy on the other side) they proceeded to trim the hedges. Then the mower struck a limb that was larger and caused the mower deck to flex cutting off the mens fingers. They sued the lawn mower company and won because it didn't say that if the blade struck something that the mower deck would flex and could cut ones fingers if placed in the space between blade and deck. That is why all mowers now have a decal showing blade hitting fingers and cutting them.

lawnmower story is above is not true...
http://www.snopes.com/legal/trimmer.asp
 

Moze

Active Member
Moze if they (do not/did not) state the the out come of not installing them they can then be held liable. Just supplying then and showing how they are to be installed does not leave them out of the litigation! This is what lawyers do all the time, they find the loop hole to drag every on into to get the most they can.

example: in the early 1970 two guys employed by a Church had a log row of hedges to trim, one of the two guy came up with the idea to use the lawn mower to do it. They measured the space between the blade and the deck and saw their was enough space for their fingers to clear the blade. So they removed the handle, started the mower and picked it up (one guy on one side of the hedges the other guy on the other side) they proceeded to trim the hedges. Then the mower struck a limb that was larger and caused the mower deck to flex cutting off the mens fingers. They sued the lawn mower company and won because it didn't say that if the blade struck something that the mower deck would flex and could cut ones fingers if placed in the space between blade and deck. That is why all mowers now have a decal showing blade hitting fingers and cutting them.

I agree with what you're saying to some extent. I worked for a national electrical sign company and there were instances of attempted lawsuits. While I don't know all of the specifics, I know they didn't lose lawsuits that were clearly the fault of the installer not following proper installation procedures. The manufacturer isn't obliged to spell out or "specify the outcome" if a sign isn't installed per their drawings (ie: "If this sign isn't installed per drawings, it could fall!"). The manufacturer is however obligated to produced drawings (often stamped engineered) showing proper installation methods/hardware. Any subcontractors that company uses are typically required to sign an agreement in advance that any work performed will be according to those drawings. That's what protects larger sign companies from litigation when they have a large amount of their installations subcontracted. If the installer deviates from the specified installation methods that they've agreed to follow, they're responsible.

It's like manufacturing a large cabinet sign with an eye-bolt at the top for lifting with a crane. If the subcontractor were to lift that sign by some other means other than the eye-bolt and it fell - the manufacturer can't be held liable when they clearly provided sufficient means to lift the sign.

All of that being said, will the lawyers still try to go after the manufacturer? Probably. Will they wind up being held responsible. I doubt it.
 

John Butto

New Member
The manufacturer was McDough (SP) which has been disfunk for more than 20 years!

If I still had the info from them I would post it.

This why the label law was enacted...1979
(a) General. In order to issue a rule such as part 1205, the Consumer Product Safety Act requires the Commission to consider and make appropriate findings with respect to a number of topics. These findings are discussed below.
(b) The degree and nature of the risk of injury part 1205 is designed to eliminate or reduce. (1) The Commission estimates that there are approximately 77,000 injuries to consumers each year caused by contact with the blades of power lawn mowers. From 1977 data, the Commission estimates that each year there are approximately 7,300 finger amputations, 2,600 toe amputations, 2,400 avulsions (the tearing of flesh or a body part), 11,450 fractures, 51,400 lacerations, and 2,300 contusions. Among the lacerations and avulsions, 35,800 were to hands and fingers and 18,000 were to toes and feet. The estimated costs caused by these injuries are $253 million, not counting any monetary damages for pain and suffering. These injuries are caused when consumers accidentally contact the blade, either inadvertently while in the vicinity of the mower, or while intentionally performing some task which they erroneously believe will not bring their hand or foot into the path of the blade.
(2) Part 1205 is expected to eliminate or reduce the severity of about 60,000 blade contact injuries per year, or 77% of all such injuries. The Commission estimates that if all mowers had been in compliance with the standard in 1977, about 6,800 finger amputations, 1,500 toe amputations, 11,000 fractures, 1,800 avulsions, 38,400 lacerations, and several hundred contusions would not have occurred. Of the lacerations and avulsions, 28,300 were finger injuries and 9,400 were toe injuries.
 

cajun312

New Member
This why the label law was enacted...1979
(a) General. In order to issue a rule such as part 1205, the Consumer Product Safety Act requires the Commission to consider and make appropriate findings with respect to a number of topics. These findings are discussed below.
(b) The degree and nature of the risk of injury part 1205 is designed to eliminate or reduce. (1) The Commission estimates that there are approximately 77,000 injuries to consumers each year caused by contact with the blades of power lawn mowers. From 1977 data, the Commission estimates that each year there are approximately 7,300 finger amputations, 2,600 toe amputations, 2,400 avulsions (the tearing of flesh or a body part), 11,450 fractures, 51,400 lacerations, and 2,300 contusions. Among the lacerations and avulsions, 35,800 were to hands and fingers and 18,000 were to toes and feet. The estimated costs caused by these injuries are $253 million, not counting any monetary damages for pain and suffering. These injuries are caused when consumers accidentally contact the blade, either inadvertently while in the vicinity of the mower, or while intentionally performing some task which they erroneously believe will not bring their hand or foot into the path of the blade.
(2) Part 1205 is expected to eliminate or reduce the severity of about 60,000 blade contact injuries per year, or 77% of all such injuries. The Commission estimates that if all mowers had been in compliance with the standard in 1977, about 6,800 finger amputations, 1,500 toe amputations, 11,000 fractures, 1,800 avulsions, 38,400 lacerations, and several hundred contusions would not have occurred. Of the lacerations and avulsions, 28,300 were finger injuries and 9,400 were toe injuries.


That sure is a lot of people who are stupid enough to stick their fingers under the mower lol
 

MikePro

New Member
All of that being said, will the lawyers still try to go after the manufacturer? Probably. Will they wind up being held responsible. I doubt it.

sad thing is, the lawyers make money, and you end up spending a salary fighting in court. regardless of how clear it could possibly be that you are not to blame.
 
Top