Quantcast

Crane Company to Face Manslaughter Charges

003062010crane.jpg
NYPD image

Two years after a collapsing crane killed two workers on the Upper East Side, the crane company’s owner—in addition to an employee and the company itself—is expected to face charges of manslaughter. When two cranes came crashing down in 2008, the Manhattan DA launched an investigation of James Lomma that turned up evidence the machinery wasn’t properly repaired after being struck by lightning. "In answer to the question about how I feel about Jimmy Lomma being taken away in handcuffs, I say it's a start and about time,” said one of the workers' fathers. “It will never bring my son back...but it might finally be the beginning of paying real attention to the safety of workers who risk their lives to feed their families."

New York Crane and Equipment Corporation sent its giant tower cranes to a Chinese company to be repaired, reports the Daily News. The cut-rate company didn’t think it could do the job: “And honest speaking we dont have confidence on this welding,” Joyce Wang of RTR wrote in a message dated June 7, 2007. But Lomma's company offered more money, and it complied. Another 2008 collapse killed seven.

According to the Times the crane disasters have “led to increased training for crane inspectors and new safety guidelines for erecting and dismantling cranes.” In the wake of the tragedy Michael Carbone, the city inspector who approved the cranes, resigned. Another inspector Edward J. Marquette was indicted for falsifying crane inspection reports and James Delayo, the city’s chief crane inspector, was found guilty of having taken bribes to get the company past inspections.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • justthinkin

    When it says that the repair was outsourced to a "Chinese" company, does the mean they were sent overseas? And what is meant exactly by "compliance"? Sounds like the repair company knew they couldn't do the job, by their own admission, yet accepted additional money to do the bare minimum. Shouldn't they also be held responsible?

  • jaycjay

    "Shouldn't they also be held responsible?"

    No. They clearly communicated their doubts about the quality of the repair, which is the only responsibility they had. They made no guarantee that the part was suitable to use, and it wasn't their decision to go ahead and put the part into service anyway -- which they couldn't have done anything more to stop.

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com