More Personal Injury Suits Filed In FIU Bridge Collapse
More personal injury lawsuits are emerging from the bridge collapse that claimed the lives of six people. A 22-year-old student was in the left-turn lane waiting for the light to change when the bridge came crashing down on her Honda Civic. The 950-ton slab of concrete barely missed the cabin of her vehicle and completely destroyed the back end. She survived the accident, but she had to be treated for level 1 trauma injuries, and her car was totaled.
This is the second lawsuit to come from the tragic bridge collapse that has left many wondering how, in this day and age, an engineering disaster like this could take place. Plaintiff’s attorneys are both targeting the companies that built and designed the bridge. The two companies named in the lawsuit are FIGG Bridge Engineers and Munilla Construction Management. At the core of the issue is the rapid design technique that was employed in the fabrication of the bridge.
At the point of the writing of this article, the cause of the bridge collapse is still unknown.
Cause Unknown, But Plaintiffs Still Allege Negligence
At the core of any personal injury lawsuit is the question of negligence. The mere fact that a bridge collapses does not mean that those who built the bridge are responsible. This has left some wondering if these lawsuits are premature in their allegations against FIGG Bridge Engineers and Munilla Construction Management. With a lot of uncertainty surrounding the ultimate cause of the collapse, it remains to be seen if the companies themselves were culpable for the disaster.
However, the first complaint alleges that the firms “drastically deviated” from known and established practices for bridge design, while the second complaint alleges that the lack of redundant safety features itself is enough to prove negligence.
Rapid Design Technique Draws Speculation Over Safety
There is a great deal of speculation concerning the bridge collapse that took 6 lives. The bridge itself was installed in a single morning using a rapid-design technique that many are blaming for the collapse. The bridge was assembled at a nearby location and then lowered into place by specially designed cranes.
The method had inspired widespread praise and excitement due to the fact that it did not impede traffic and was considered safer for construction crews. Ultimately, the intent of the method was to reduce installation time, and it was hoped that this would reduce safety issues to pedestrians and motorists.
It’s unclear if either plaintiff’s case will be successful given that there is so much uncertainty concerning the cause of the collapse. One argument attacks the rapid design technique as intrinsically faulty while the other assumes the lack of redundant safety features is proof of negligence. It’s unclear, however, if the design technique was to blame for the collapse, or if a lack of redundant features rises to the standard of negligence.
Have You Been Injured by Another Party’s Negligence?
If so, you may be entitled to damages. Contact Alan Goldfarb, P.A. in Miami and we’ll begin discussing your case immediately.