Dallas Jury Awards $860M in Crane Collapse Wrongful Death
A tower crane collapsed during severe weather, falling onto an apartment complex and killing one resident. The plaintiffs alleged negligence in crane maintenance and operation, while the defendants blamed operator error and equipment issues. The jury found for the plaintiff after a two-week trial.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $860,000,000
- County
- Dallas County, TX
- Resolved
- 2023
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Wrongful Death
- Accident Type
- Truck/Commercial
- Case Type
- Crane Collapse
Case Overview
A wrongful death lawsuit was filed in November 2023 following a tower crane collapse in June 2019 in Old East Dallas. The incident occurred during severe weather conditions, when a crane crashed into the Elan City Lights apartment complex, resulting in the death of a 29-year-old resident and injuries to five others. The estate of the deceased woman and her mother filed the action against the developer, Greystar Development & Construction, LP, and Bigge Crane & Rigging company, which owned and leased the crane.
The plaintiffs alleged negligence in crane maintenance and operation, contending the crane was not properly positioned to weathervane, or move with wind direction, to withstand the predicted severe weather. Defendants countered that operator error caused the collapse, with the developer's crane operator testifying that the crane had been set in weathervane mode. Bigge Crane & Rigging company argued it should not be held liable due to its agreement with the developer.
After a two-week trial, a jury deliberated for seven hours before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The jury awarded a gross verdict of $860,000,000. This included damages to the deceased woman's estate and her family for loss of companionship and mental anguish.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome significantly deviates from similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Deserve a fair outcome for your case?
Share your situation and we'll connect you with experienced motor vehicle accident attorneys who have handled cases like this in Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A driver alleged that a tractor-trailer driver was negligent in causing a rear-end collision. The plaintiff suffered neck and spinal injuries requiring surgery. The defendants disputed causation and the extent of the injuries. The plaintiff claimed the truck driver was under the influence of drugs. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff.
One driver was traveling on a tollway when their vehicle ran out of gas and became disabled. The other driver, who was following behind, struck the disabled vehicle. The first driver claimed injuries to their neck and back. The jury found the second driver 80% liable and the first driver 20% liable.
One driver stopped in traffic due to construction. The other driver rear-ended the stopped vehicle. The injured driver claimed ankle and back injuries. The defense argued the accident was unavoidable or that the driver acted as an ordinary and prudent driver. The jury found the second driver liable but awarded no damages.
One driver was traveling in Beaumont when their vehicle struck the rear end of a pickup truck. The occupants of the car claimed they suffered injuries. The driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and was never identified. The occupants sued their own insurer for underinsured-motorist benefits. The case proceeded to trial regarding one occupant's claim, with the defense arguing inconsistencies in her account of the accident.
One driver was stopped at an intersection preparing to turn left when their vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle. The driver claimed neck injuries. The other driver's insurer offered its policy limit. The injured driver sued their own insurer for underinsured motorist benefits, alleging the other driver was negligent. The defense questioned the extent of injuries and suggested they were pre-existing.