Professional Documents
Culture Documents
________________
files this, Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary and Permanent
Injunctive Relief, complaining of and against Defendants Bigge Crane and Rigging, Elan
Dallas City Lights Owner, LP, Elan Dallas City Lights GP, LLC, GREP General Partner,
LLC, Gabriella Tower, LLC, and Gabriella Nationwide, LLC, (collectively herein after
“Defendants”) and, for cause, would respectfully show the Court the following:
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |1
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Macy Chiasson, is a resident Dallas of Texas.
who may be served by and through its registered agent Paracorp Incorporated located at
3610-2 N. Josey Lane, Suite 223, Carrollton, Texas 75007-0000 USA or wherever she/he
may be found.
5. Defendant Elan Dallas City Lights GP, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company who may be served by and through its registered agent CT Corporation, 1999
Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever she/he may be found.
partnership who may be served by and through its registered agent CT Corporation, 1999
Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever she/he may be found.
company who may be served by and through its registered agent CT Corporation, 1999
Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever she/he may be found.
may be served by and through its registered agent CT Corporation, 1999 Bryan Street,
company who may be served by and through its registered agent CT Corporation, 1999
Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201 or wherever she/he may be found.
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the amount of damages sought
by Plaintiff falls within the jurisdiction limits of the Court and because the Court has
general subject matter jurisdiction to determine the controversies at issue in this action.
11. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because all or a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas.
FACTS
12. Chiasson is an American mixed martial arts fighter (“MMA”) and winner of
The Ultimate Fighter 28 Women's Featherweight as May 15, 2019, she is #11 in the official
13. Sunday, June 9, 2019 appeared to be a normal day, the sun was out, people
were brunching on patio’s, lounging at the pool and even golfing. Suddenly about 1:40 pm
the weather turned, a giant storm cloud surrounded central Dallas, wind gusts got as high
as 71 mph, 100-year old trees fell, street signs snapped, even lawn furniture flew.
14. Chiasson had just returned to her apartment from taking a friend to the
airport and had been back in her apartment [Elan City Lights Apartment Community
located at 2627 Live Oak St, Dallas, Texas 75204] for about twenty minutes, when she
heard an unusually loud boom. Chiasson knew construction across the street was going
complex under construction had begun to sway uncontrollably. The model of the crane, a
Peiner SK 415-20, should be able to withstand 95-mph winds and like the other cranes in
the area it should have been weathervaning in the storm. Weathervaning is a practice
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |3
known in the construction industry where companies allow their cranes to spin freely in
the winds.
16. Chiasson immediately, looked outside her window and all she could see was
black smoke, glass breaking, cement and cars falling. Chiasson immediately grabbed her
phone, shoes and whistled for her dog all while she could hear the crane now ripping
through her apartment building floor by floor. Chiasson ran out barefoot, into the hall
where alarms were blaring and fire doors were closing. As the chaos ensued she managed
to run outside with her dog, phone and a pair of shoes which are the only possessions she
still has. As she made it outside, she put her shoes on as her foot was in pain, she realized
she had been cut by the glass she ran over as she fled for her safety. Chiasson looked up
and the apartment manager, was signaling people into the apartment lobby; however, she
noticed the ceiling cracking and water starting to come through so she grabbed her dog
17. Unfortunately, the crane failed and in the ensuing crash killed at least 1,
injuring several others and displacing all 500 residents. The crane which had been on the
construction site for more than a year was owned by Bigge Crane and Rigging (“Bigge”)
which touts on its website the fact that for more than 100 years, Bigge has been one of
America’s premier global crane sales, crane rental, and project services companies.
Despite also touting the fact that safety is their most important core value, Bigge has been
violations during the past ten (10) years. As recently as 2013, in an incident that occurred
in Arkansas OSHA found that Bigge’s crane contributed to hazards that caused the fatal
collapse.
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |4
18. Defendants Bigge and/or Greystar had actual or constructive control or
possession of the premises at issue and the operations on the premises. The crane affixed
to the premises, including the attachments to the crane as installed and maintained,
posed an unreasonable risk of harm to those using the crane and those in the area
surrounding the crane in that it was not properly installed and/or maintained to hold up
during natural weather conditions. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of
the danger posed to workers, invitees, passers by and others in the vicinity of the crane.
19. Defendants breached their duties of ordinary care to the Plaintiff by failing
to adequately warn the Plaintiff and others of the condition and failing to make that
Plaintiff’s injury.
maintaining of the crane. The Defendants duty of reasonable care included installing and
Defendants breached that duty in that they failed to properly inspect and maintain the
subject crane on a regular basis in order to keep it in conformity with safety regulations.
inspect, maintain, and/or repair the crane on the premises possessed, controlled and/or
operated by the Defendants. Because the work on the premises for the purpose of
inspecting, maintaining and/or repairing the subject crane possessed and/or controlled
by the Defendants posed a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm unless special
precautions were taken, Defendants had a duty to require any contractor hired to perform
the work to take necessary precautions by contract or any other manner necessary to
ensure the taking of such precautions. Defendants breached these duties in that they
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |5
failed to require any contractor to take necessary precautions regarding the inspection,
22. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the Defendants duties
the Plaintiff was injured. This event and the Defendants’ breaches of duties are the
CAUSES OF ACTION
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
24. The act or omission when viewed objectively from the Defendants’
standpoint at the time it occurred involved an extreme degree of risk considering the
probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Defendants, their agents,
servants and/or employees committed various acts and/or omissions constituting gross
negligence.
25. The Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded
with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of others. The wrongful
wanton disregard for the rights, welfare, or safety of the Plaintiff and when viewed
objectively from the standpoint of said Defendants at the time of the acts or omissions,
the conduct involved extreme risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the
potential harm to others and said Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk
involved, but nevertheless, proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights safety, or
welfare of others.
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |6
26. The Defendants’ conduct constituted malice and/or gross negligence and
amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court and as set forth in TEX.
NEGLIGENCE
27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
32. The Plaintiff belongs to the class of persons the statute was designed to
protect, and Plaintiff’s injury is of the type the statute was designed to prevent.
33. The statute is one for which tort liability may be imposed when violated.
35. The Defendants’ act and/or omission proximately caused the Plaintiff’s
injury.
36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |7
37. This case involves the injuries of the Plaintiff. The injuries occurred through
no fault of the Plaintiff. The facts of this case will undoubtedly demonstrate that the acts
and/or omissions of the Defendants caused the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff. As such,
immediately inspect the premises, subject crane, and any and all attachments and related
including those described herein and/or involved in or connected with the incident in
videotaping, analyzing, examining and testing said articles in order to accumulate and
preserve material evidence necessary for the proper investigation and/or determination
of the facts and circumstances in question in connection with Plaintiff’s claim under
39. Plaintiff will sustain imminent and irreparable harm if the relief requested
herein is not granted. The Defendants and/or their agents, servants, and/or employees
have already begun their investigation of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, that
the incident site and the crane and any and all attachments and related equipment are
not being preserved by any investigative authorities and that material evidence may be
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |8
THE PROBABLE INJURY WILL BE IRREPARABLE IF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NOT
GRANTED
repairs that will impair the development and/or prosecution of this lawsuit.
41. It is critical to the investigation, discovery and proof of the Plaintiff’s claims
alleged herein to inspect, measure, survey, photograph, videotape, analyze, and examine
the premises and subject crane and any and all related equipment and attachments. Relief
is requested to accumulate and preserve material evidence, which is necessary for the
proper investigation and/or determination of the true facts and circumstances in question
42. There is no legal remedy available to Plaintiff that will protect Plaintiff’s
rights and interests in this lawsuit if critical physical evidence is lost, destroyed and/or
43. Plaintiff has acted timely and is willing to post a bond although Plaintiff
44. The Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm unless the
Defendants, their agents, representatives, servants, employees, affiliates and anyone with
restrained and prohibited from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the following acts,
without the written authorization of the Plaintiff or his undersigned legal representative
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E |9
Altering, repairing, moving, modifying, damaging, destroying, conveying,
45. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests that this Court extend the Injunctive Relief
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
awarded against the Defendants in a sum that is not less than three times the amount of
Defendants are hereby requested to disclose the information or material described in Rule
194.2. This is a continuing duty and requires supplementation in accordance with the
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E | 10
PRAYER
be cited to appear and to answer herein and that, injunctive relief requested herein be
granted, and that upon final hearing, the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against
limits of this Court for actual, special, consequential and punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys’ fees, reasonable paralegal fees, costs of court, and pre-and post-judgment
interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and for such other and further relief at law or
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E | 11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 1.06: RELATED CASES
Plaintiff certifies that no other related action exists that would require transfer
pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
/s/ Jason H. Friedman
__________________________
Attorney
________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
876245 P A G E | 12