Fru-Con, which has been hit with a proposed $280,000 fine by the federal government, has in essence gone on the legal offensive to have the Italian manufacturer of the launching gantries, Paolo de Nicola, S.p.A., share responsibility in the estimated millions of dollars of costs from project overruns and lawsuits, say equipment experts.

The case may be the most expensive and complicated litigation related to a lifting accident since the July 1999 collapse of Big Blue, a mobile crane used during construction of Miller Park in Milwaukee, because launching gantries used to build segmental concrete bridges are complex, and most are made in Europe. Word of the Ohio accident also has injected new caution into use of such building systems. After the accident, a transportation agency in Boston came around to "make sure we had all our ducks in a row," says Jim Jones, assistant superintendent for J.F. White Contracting Co., Framingham, Mass.

Families of the Toledo-area ironworkers killed in the accident welcome anything that explains why the collapse occurred. "I hope this will be sorted out legally," says Joe Blaze, business manager of Ironworkers’ union Local 55. "The wishes of the families are to find out what happened."

Fru-Con, based in Ballwin, Mo., declined to answer questions. The contractor has retained Dinsmore & Shohl, a Cincinnati-based law firm, to represent it. One goal of the lawsuit apparently is to show that Paolo de Nicola was an integral part of the project. A source tied to the project says the gantries’ manufacturer had staff at the jobsite during early stages of the project but not when the accident occurred.

The legal basis for the lawsuit includes negligence, breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties.

Specifically, Fru-Con claims Paolo de Nicola’s bonded $5.2-million contract and warrantied performance obligated the manufacturer to provide two safe and smoothly-functioning launching gantries and to fully train Fru-Con workers in their assembly and use.

But a great deal went awry, Fru-Con claims. Gantry parts arrived three months late and required numerous field corrections, its suit says. In addition to incomplete welds and other problems, the gantries were unable "to accommodate the horizontal radius, or ‘curve,’" in the bridge, Fru-Con contends.

Left unsaid by the lawsuit is a clear tie between Paolo and the accident, during which no segment was being lifted. According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Fru-Con failed to properly secure the legs of the launching gantry (ENR 8/9/04 p. 12). OSHA’s report cites Fru-Con four times for improperly anchoring to pier caps the front legs and the roller beam for the back legs of both the launching truss that collapsed and its twin. The manufacturer’s instructions state that the legs should be anchored with threaded bars, each prestressed to 135,000 lb.

Fru-Con is contesting the fines and has said previously that its procedures were all performed "under the watchful eye" of Paolo de Nicola. But outside of its contract, Fru-Con’s burden of proof may be tough to meet, experts say. One reason is the lack of standards for specialized lifting devices such as a custom-designed launching truss. "I don’t know where the heck you would look for a standard on that," says Ron Kohner, a crane engineering consultant in Roseville, Minn.

A likely defense will be that Fru-Con improperly used the launching gantry. Reached in Italy, a Paolo engineer declined to comment other than to claim that Fru-Con failed to correctly anchor the tail. "To us it is very clear," he says.