During the investigation, an independent panel of engineers determined that ignoring the cracks in the bridge amounted to professional misconduct. This alone would be enough for an attorney to hold the companies liable for the 15 lives that were lost due to their negligence.

Corporate Personhood and Criminal Charges

Corporate personhood is a concept that allows an entity like a corporation to separate itself from those who run it and those who own or fund it. In terms of civil lawsuits, this protects the individual investors and decision makers of the corporation from personally paying out in the case of liability. For instance, none of the individual engineers or decision makers a FIGG Bridge Group or Munilla Construction Management will pay a dime to those injured or the families of those killed. That money will come directly out of the corporation’s coffers. In other words, the individuals are not held responsible for those deaths, the corporation is.

Criminal charges, however, are a much different matter. Criminal charges are directed at individuals, not corporations. Individuals can be held liable for crimes like manslaughter, but under what circumstances?

The Meeting

According to the Miami Herald, the morning before the bridge collapsed, those involved with its construction held a meeting. At this point, no one knows what conversations took place at the meeting, whether or not the pictures were discussed, and who, if anyone, thought the information worth sharing with the Florida Department of Transportation. The details of that meeting could hold significant clues as to what was going on in the minds of those involved with the bridge’s construction.

Though the Herald has asked that the details of that meeting be released to the public, thus far the Florida DoT has refused to comply with the request. The question is why? Are they attempting to build a criminal case against one or more bad actors who may have kept information about the cracks from the government? Or are they simply shielding a special interest group from civil liability? The details of that meeting could lay such claims to rest.

What’s clear is that, with the knowledge of the cracks in the bridge, the companies involved with its construction should have contacted the Florida Department of Transportation and closed off both the bridge and the street lying underneath.

It remains to be seen, however, whether or not Florida will either pursue those charges or even allow such charged to be pursued.

Alan Goldfarb Represents Victims of the FIU Bridge Collapse and their Families

Miami personal injury attorney, Alan Goldfarb is currently representing victims of the FIU bridge collapse and their families. He can also represent you in your personal injury case. Give us a call or talk to us online, and we can provide you with a free case evaluation.

Resources:

miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article215833630.html

miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article216442965.html

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.

Resources:

miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article206114364.html

cnn.com/2018/03/17/us/florida-miami-bridge-collapse/index.html

cnbc.com/2018/03/15/the-bridge-that-collapsed-near-a-florida-university-was-installed-in-a-single-morning.html