FILED

8/26/2019 12:54 PM
JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY

CAUSE NO. CC-19-04006-B

MACY CHIASSON, ALEX DUTTA, §

KELLI WASHINGTON, CHELSEA §
VILANUEVA, ELIAS CANALES, §
TIERNEY CHANEY, JARRETT §
CHANEY, TIMOTHY LEARY, §
ALEXANDER HAMPTON, §
JEANETTE PODGORSKI, §
JONATHAN HOELZER, §
CHRISTINE QUIBIN, GLORIA §
BECKHAM, JIUNYING LIANG, § IN THE COUNTY COURT
TALESA TAYLOR, JUAN LOZANO, § AT LAW NO. 2
ROSALYN ANDERSON, JON §
GILCHREST, MATHEW §
HERNANDEZ, TYLER WENTZ, §
SARAH GALLOWAY, MICHAEL §
LARK, GETRAL GRAY, BRITNEE §
MORGAN, AALIYAH MORGAN, §
ALEXA ADAMS, DANIEL §
JOHNSON, ANDREA MCCAIN, §
ALYSSA COVERDALE, LUIS §
BARRAZA, CARLOS PARRA §
CARRASQUER, LOUIS FULGHAM, §
RAINA F. SHERFERAW, ABIY §
SHEFERAW, BRANDI GILMORE, §
JOSHUA GARCIA, §
§
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING, §
ELAN DALLAS CITY LIGHTS §
OWNER, LP, ELAN DALLAS CITY §
LIGHTS GP, LLC, GREP GENERAL §
PARTNTER, LLC, GABRIELLA §
TOWER, LLC, GABRIELLA §
NATIONWIDE, LLC, HOUSLEY §
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A §
THE HOUSLEY GROUP, §
GREYSTAR DEVELOPMENT AND §
CONSTRUCTION, LP. AND JOHN §
DOE, INDIVIDUALLY, §
§
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |1
 PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Macy Chiasson, Alex Dutta, Kelli Washington, Chelsea Villanueva,

Elias Canales, Tierney Chaney, Jarrett Chaney, Timothy Leary, Alexander Hampton, Jeanette

Podgorski, Jonathan Hoelzer, Christine Quibin, Gloria Beckham, Jiunying Liang, Talesa

Taylor, Juan Lozano, Rosalyn Anderson, Jon Gilchrest, Matthew Hernandez, Tyler Wentz,

Sarah Galloway, Michael Lark, Getral Gray, Britnee Morgan, Aaliyah Morgan, Alexa Adams,

Daniel Johnson, Andrea McCain, Alyssa Coverdale, Luis Barraza, Carlos Parra Carrasquer,

Louis Fulgham, Raina F. Sherferaw, Abiy Sheferaw, Brandi Gilmore, Joshua Garcia

(collectively herein after “Plaintiffs,” and/or “Intervenors”) and files this, Plaintiffs’ Petition

In Intervention, 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, Gabriella Nationwide, LLC, Housley Communications, Inc. d/b/a The

Housley Group, Greystar Development and Construction, LP and John Doe, Individually

(collectively herein after “Defendants”) and, for cause, would respectfully show the Court the

following:

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN AND RULE 47 DISCLOSURE

1. Pursuant to RULE 190.4 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiffs

requests that discovery be conducted under Level 3.

2. Pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 47, Plaintiffs seeks monetary relief

over $1,000,000.00, and non-monetary relief.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiffs Macy Chiasson, Alex Dutta, Kelli Washington, Chelsea Vilanueva,

Elias Canales, Tierney Chaney, Jarrett Chaney, Timothy Leary, Alexander Hampton, Jeanette

Podgorski, Jonathan Hoelzer, Christine Quibin, Gloria Beckham, Jiunying Liang, Talesa
___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |2
Taylor, Juan Lozano, Rosalyn Anderson, Jon Gilchrest, Matthew Hernandez, Tyler Wentz,

Sarah Galloway, Michael Lark, Getral Gray, Britnee Morgan, Aaliyah Morgan, Alexa Adams,

Daniel Johnson, Andrea McCain, Alyssa Coverdale, Luis Barraza, Carlos Parra Carrasquer,

Louis Fulgham, Raina F. Sherferaw, Abiy Sheferaw, Brandi Gilmore, Joshua Garcia are

residents of Dallas Texas.

4. Defendant Bigge Crane and Rigging, Co. is a foreign for-profit

corporation 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

it 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 it may be found.

6. Defendant Elan Dallas City Lights Owner, LP is a foreign limited

partnership who may be served by and through its registered agent CT Corporation, 1999

Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever it may be found.

7. Defendant GREP General Partner, 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 it may be found.

8. Defendant Gabriella Tower, 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 it may be found.

9. Defendant Gabriella Nationwide, 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 it may be found.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |3
 10. Defendant Housley Communications, Inc. d/b/a The Housley Group

(“Housley”), is a Texas Corporation who may be served by and through its registered agent

RD Housley, 3550 S. Bryant Blvd., San Angelo, Texas, 76903, or wherever he may be found.

11. Defendant Greystar Development and Construction, LP, 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 it may be found.

12. Defendant John Doe, is the individual responsible for operating the crane

which is the subject of this suit, upon information and belief John Doe is a resident of Texas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the amount of damages sought by

Plaintiffs 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.

14. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because all or a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Dallas County, Texas. TEX. CIV.

PRAC. REM. CODE § 15.002.

BASIS OF INTERVENTION

15. Intervenors have a justiciable interest in the matters in controversy in this

litigation in that Intervenors were residents of the Elan City Lights Apartment Community

(“Elan City Lights”) located at 2627 Live Oak St, Dallas, Texas 75204. The Intervenors who

all lived at the same building yet are from different walks of life have all suffered considerable

personal injuries and/or danger due to the negligence of the Defendants. Each Plaintiff /

Intervenor experienced their own horror during the collapse of the crane which is the subject

of this action.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |4
 FACTS

16. Sunday, June 9, 2019 appeared to be a normal day, the sun was out, people

were brunching on patios, 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 strong, 100-

year old trees fell, street signs snapped, even lawn furniture flew.

17. Suddenly, during the storm the residents of Elan City Lights and bystanders

heard an unusually loud boom. Most residents knew construction across the street was going

on, but never on a Sunday.

18. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, the crane attached to The Gabriella apartment

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 known in

the construction industry where companies allow their cranes to spin freely in the winds.

19. The Plaintiffs were all in different parts of the apartment building. Had they

locked outside all they could have seen would have been black smoke, glass breaking, cement

and cars falling.

20. For example, 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 and ran another two blocks to safety.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |5
 21. Another example, is McCain who had been unloading her car turned around to

see the parking garage collapsing. In fear for her life, McCain jumped back in her car to get

out of the parking garage when the nearest exit ramp collapsed in front of her. Fortunately, a

resident helped her get to an emergency exit and out of the parking garage, but not before she

inhaled debris and fumes from the collapsing garage.

22. Unfortunately, the crane failed and in the ensuing crash killed at least 1 person,

injured many others and displaced all 500 residents. The crane which had been on the

construction site that was managed in part by Housley 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.

23. Despite also touting the fact that safety is their most important core value,

Bigge has been fined $154,525 for 14 Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(“OSHA”) 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.

24. Defendants Housley / 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 residents, workers, invitees, passers by and others in the vicinity of the crane.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |6
 25. Defendants breached their duties of ordinary care to the Plaintiffs by failing to

adequately warn the Plaintiffs and others of the unsafe conditions and failing to make those

conditions reasonably safe. Defendants’ breach of these duties proximately caused Plaintiffs’

injuries.

26. Defendants further had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintaining

of the crane. The Defendants’ duty of reasonable care included installing and maintaining the

crane so that it conformed with specifications and regulations. 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.

27. Defendants breached their duties in hiring an incompetent contractor to

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 failed to require any

contractor to take necessary precautions regarding the inspection, maintenance, operation

and/or repair of the subject crane.

28. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the Defendants’ duties the

Plaintiffs severe injured. This event and the Defendants’ breaches of duties are the proximate

and/or producing cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |7
 CAUSES OF ACTION

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

29. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the

paragraphs above and below as if set forth verbatim herein.

30. 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.

31. The Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded with

conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of others. The wrongful conduct of the

Defendants involved more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence or error of

judgment. Rather, Defendants’ conduct constituted a heedless, reckless and wanton disregard

for the rights, welfare, or safety of the Plaintiffs 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.

32. The Defendants’ conduct constituted malice and/or gross negligence and

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover judgment against Defendants for exemplary damages in an

amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court and as set forth in TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE §41.001 and §41.0011 and not less than three (3) times the amount of its

actual damages.

NEGLIGENCE

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the paragraphs

above and below as if set forth verbatim herein.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |8
 34. The Defendants owed a legal duty to the Plaintiffs.

35. The Defendants breached said duty.

36. The breach proximately caused the Plaintiffs’ personal injuries.

NEGLIGENCE PER SE

37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the paragraphs

above and below as if set forth verbatim herein.

38. The Plaintiffs belong to the class of persons the statute was designed to protect,

and Plaintiffs’ injuries are of the type the statute was designed to prevent.

39. The statute is one for which tort liability may be imposed when violated.

40. The Defendants violated the statute without excuse.

41. The Defendants’ act and/or omission proximately caused the Plaintiffs’

injuries.

PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGES

42. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if fully

set forth herein verbatim.

43. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered some or all of the

following: bodily, economic, mental and/or personal property injuries. Consequently,

Plaintiffs seek the following damages: 1) Medical Expenses: Plaintiffs have incurred bodily

injuries which were caused by the incident in question. Plaintiffs have incurred medical

expenses in the past and will continue to incur them in the future; 2) Physical Pain:

Plaintiffs have endured physical pain in the past and will endure pain in the future; 3) Mental

Anguish: Plaintiffs have endured mental anguish in the past and will endure mental anguish

in the future; 4) Loss of Earning Capacity: Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of earnings in

the past, and will continue to suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future; 5) Physical

Impairment: Plaintiffs have endured physical impairment in the past, and will continue to

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E |9
suffer the effects in the future; 6) Property Damages: It’s have been damaged by Loss of

Use, Loss in Market Value, Replacement Value, Actual Value and Sentimental Value of their

property; and, 7) In all reasonable probability, certain Plaintiffs will continue to suffer from

these injuries in the future, and Plaintiffs seek compensation for such future damages.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

44. Moreover, Plaintiffs respectfully request that exemplary damages be awarded

against the Defendants in a sum that is not less than three (3) times the amount of the

Plaintiffs’ actual damages.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

45. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the 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 TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

46. All conditions precedent necessary to Plaintiffs right to recover in this action

have been performed, have occurred, or have been waived.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants 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 Plaintiffs against

Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits

of this Court for actual, special, consequential and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’

fees, costs of court, pre-and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and for

such other and further relief at law or in equity to which the Plaintiffs may show themselves

to be justly entitled.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E | 10
 Respectfully submitted,
FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, L.L.P.

/s/ Jason H. Friedman

by:_____________________________
Lawrence J. Friedman
State Bar No. 07469300
lfriedman@fflawoffice.com
Jason H. Friedman
State Bar No. 24059784
jason@fflawoffice.com

5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75254
(972) 788-1400 (Telephone)

And

SHAMIEH LAW, PLLC

Ramez F. Shamieh
State Bar No. 24066683
ramez@shamiehlaw.com
Myles Lenz
State Bar No. 24092685
myles@shamiehlaw.com

1111 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 1160

Dallas, Texas 75247

ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served upon all parties or their counsel of record in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure on August 26, 2019.

/s/ Jason H. Friedman

____________________________
Jason H. Friedman

___________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION IN INTERVENTION
880904 P A G E | 11