Do we need to see more of this?

[stock]

Charges Brought in Philly Building Collapse That Killed Six

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A cut-rate building contractor will face murder charges for a botched demolition in downtown Philadelphia that killed six people inside an adjacent store, officials announced Monday.

Prosecutors called Griffin Campbell "the center of culpability" for the June collapse, and said he ignored his client's warning the night before that disaster was imminent.

"The tragic and preventable collapse ... robbed our city of six amazing Philadelphians that perished in the rubble and left an additional 13 wounded," Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said at a news conference. "The motive was greed."

Campbell, 49, had a deadline to meet, was being paid a flat fee, and wanted to preserve as much salvageable material as he could, leading him to cut corners, Williams said. He charged Campbell with six counts each of third-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, along with other charges.

Griffin's subcontractor, equipment operator Sean Benschop, had previously been charged with involuntary manslaughter, and remains in custody on $1.6 million bail.

The building owner who chose Campbell's $112,000 bid to take down three attached storefronts — when other bids were two or three times that amount — was not charged Monday. And his architect was given immunity in exchange for his grand jury testimony. However, the panel has not finished its work, and Williams declined to comment on whether owner Richard Basciano could be charged.

The collapse occurred when an unsupported brick wall crashed down onto a smaller Salvation Army store, trapping shoppers and workers in rubble. Campbell was also charged with risking a catastrophe, conspiracy and endangerment.

He was expected to surrender to police Monday. A call to his cellphone went unanswered, and his lawyer did not return a call for comment.

Benschop allegedly operated heavy equipment while high on marijuana and painkillers. In addition to the earlier charges, the grand jury charged him Monday with criminal conspiracy.

"Mr. Benschop had nothing to do with the planning of how that building was coming down. He showed up to work and the contractor told him what to do," defense lawyer Daine Grey said Monday.

Williams agreed that Campbell alone chose the demolition method and supervised the job site.

Rather than work from the top down and brace unsupported walls along the way, he instead had workers remove the building's facade, and then take out the lateral floor joints for salvage. That left the brick side walls unsupported.

Meanwhile, heavy equipment being used at the scene and trains running underneath the site caused vibrations that increased the risk of a collapse, they said.

"This was a clearly hazardous demolition, not just on the day of the accident, but on the days and weeks leading up to the accident," said lawyer Robert Mongeluzzi, who represents several victims' families.

"The shame of this accident is that this (demolition process) was debated back and forth between STB (Basciano's company) and the Salvation Army," he said, referring to emails that show the collapse was predicted while the parties bickered. "This was a game of chicken in which neither STB nor the Salvation Army wanted to blink."

Basciano, a commercial developer once dubbed the pornography king of New York's Times Square, was razing the run-down buildings to make way for redevelopment. His architect, Plato Marinakos, who had secured the demolition permit, testified before the grand jury after he was promised immunity.

Several lawsuits have been filed against Basciano, Campbell, Benschop and others. The victims' lawyers also accuse the city of lax oversight of the demolition process, but the city is generally immune from such lawsuits. One of the shoppers killed was 24-year-old Anne Bryan, the daughter of the city treasurer.

The most seriously injured survivor, 52-year-old Mariya Plekan, lost both legs after spending nearly 13 hours in the rubble.

Region: Northeast Edition | StoryID: 21635 |


Construction Equipment Guide

470 Maryland Drive

Fort Washington, PA 19034

800-523-2200

http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/story.asp?story=21635&ref=newsletter

 

[ValleyFirewood]

Without knowing the ACTUAL story and not the media's version hard to say what went on. Just based on the bit I read it seems like a lot of finger pointing, knee jerk reactions and ambulance chasers.

Building that fell down is on the left of the Salvation Army.

Maybe it's just me, but WHY was that place allowed to be open even? Seems really dangerous!

The couple other stories I read made no mention of the operator being high, just that he tested positive for codeine and marijuana. Sorry but a positive test doesn't mean anything about being high.

 

[390eric]

There was a video of the incident happening. It was pure stupidity, rushing the job, and trying to be cheap. And obviously if the operator was high and on drugs, he wasn't very competent or smart. I remember from the video seeing the long connecting brick wall between the buildings standing unsupported. He was running a hammer on a backhoe very close to the wall, which caused it to fall onto the building next door. I am in Pittsburgh PA and clearly remember seeing the video on the news that day.

 

[Tracklayer]

It is hard to believe that it was considered acceptable to allow that adjoining single story building to be open for business and occupied during the demolition. I can understand how the demolition plan leaving the tall wall standing without support was very dangerous. But even with a proper plan, it would seem unacceptable to have people inside the small building which was in the fall zone for that tall wall. Who was responsible for keeping people out of the small building; or deciding that it was not necessary to keep people out of it?

 

[stock]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Building-Collapse-210270151.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb1WI8w1JeU

 

[CM1995]

It seems that the this horrible incident (it was no accident) can be blamed on failures from the top down. Starting with the City all the way down to the operator. In my opinion, the Salvation Army has culpability as well, as they should have closed the store on their own during the demolition in order to protect their workers and patrons.

Such a tragic story that should not have happened in a developed country.

 

[Tracklayer]

I would think that the City would be directly responsible for closing the Salvation Army building and making entry impossible during the demolition.

 

[digger242j]

In my opinion, the Salvation Army has culpability as well, as they should have closed the store on their own during the demolition in order to protect their workers and patrons.

I think that's debatable. Demolition and store management are totally unrelated professions. You're essentially requiring a store manager, to be familiar enough with the risks involved in building demolition to make that call. That's kind of a slippery slope, because if extended to it's logical conclusion, it would establish the precedent that, to protect their workers and patrons, every business must be familiar with the risks involved in every nearby activity. Do you want everybody in the neighborhood questioning the safety of your operation every time you stick a bucket in the ground?

Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been prudent for the Salvation Army to ask some pointed questions about the safety of a demo operation within tipping range of their roof, but I can't agree that it rises to the level of "culpability". That belongs entirely to the supposed professionals doing and overseeing the work.

On edit: Well...I guess I should've read Stock's post in it's entirety before I replied. I'd read the stories that came out at the time, so I admit to just having skimmed over to opening post here. Apparently the Salvation Army did ask some pointed questions. I'm not sure though, what we can make out of the statement, "This was a game of chicken in which neither STB nor the Salvation Army wanted to blink." I think we need more details...

 

[CM1995]

I think that's debatable.

Yes it is and the reason why I posted it.

By culpability, I mean in this particular situation if wouldn't take an engineer to see what they were doing could turn out in a very bad way especially when you basically share a common wall. One of the news articles said something to the effect that the building owner and the Salvation Army were in "deadlock" or something similar. (EDIT - You read the same thing I did).

I think they should have taken steps as well to call City Hall, raise hell and close the store while these morons were attempting to demo this building. I'm not saying it's their fault this happened either but they also have a responsibility to their patrons with their knowledge and the pissing match they were already involved in with the building owner. That is enough in my book to lay some culpability onto them.

I agree, the details are sketchy on this and there is more to this story.

 

[digger242j]

You know, there's something else about the story as posted above that seems inconsistent to me:

"The tragic and preventable collapse ... robbed our city of six amazing Philadelphians that perished in the rubble and left an additional 13 wounded," Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said at a news conference. "The motive was greed."

Campbell, 49, had a deadline to meet, was being paid a flat fee, and wanted to preserve as much salvageable material as he could, leading him to cut corners, Williams said. ...
....
The building owner who chose Campbell's $112,000 bid to take down three attached storefronts — when other bids were two or three times that amount — was not charged Monday. ....

If you think about it, it's hard to argue that the guy was not incompetent, and negligent, but is a bid half or a third of what his competition was asking characteristic of "greed"?

To me it sounds more like he bid way too low and was cutting corners and scavenging everything he could to keep from losing his ass. Who among us is not familiar with at least the temptation to do likewise? If greed was involved, maybe we should be looking at the project owner that hired the incompetent, but really low, bidder ?

 

[CM1995]

If greed was involved, maybe we should be looking at the project owner that hired the incompetent, but really low, bidder ?

Absolutely, the building owner knew he had a sucker on the hook after looking at the bids but of course what would expect from the "porn king".

Furthermore while the attorney general wants to throw around "motives", he needs to add charges of failure to abide by and enforce the law to the building department, city hall and the mayor. The fact the city let this go on in the first place is pathetic.

 

[stock]

I think we are now getting to the point. I can't really comment as I'm in a different jurisdiction and not familiar with your rules and reg. Here it would be corporate manslaughter all round........

 

[digger242j]

Thinking a little further about it, we aren't really given the details about the conflict between the Salvation Army and the owner, but if it was a matter of "We're not closing the store because we'd lose money.", what do we label that as? Maybe CM had it right?

 

[grandpa]

Cm right??? I wouldn't go that far..... Whats wrong with the bonding and insurance company? A bid is a bid.

 

[Greg]

Gramps, you are so right. A bid is a bid. Now the insurance company will be faced with a claim to the limits of the policy that was in place. No doubt the bonding company will be on the hook for finding someone to finish the job and pay for it up to the limits of the bond amount. After that the owner will be on the hook for the rest. Looks to me like the owner wasn't to smart either.

 

[mitch504]

I'll bet you a nickel there is no bonding company....

 

[CM1995]

I'll bet you a nickel there is no bonding company....

You beat me too it, furthermore was there even a GL policy?

Back to the Salvation Army -

Take that car insurance commercial where the DIY'er is cutting the tree limb off, directly over his neighbors driveway on which the neighbor has his car parked. Limb crashes onto car and insurance takes care of it, blah,blah,blah.

If you were standing in your driveway watching your idiot neighbor about to cut a large tree limb that is hanging directly over your car - do you move your car out of prudence or leave it parked there? It's still the neighbors fault but if you leave it parked you are now in a rental car.

The Salvation Army has a duty to protect it's clientele and was at minimum in an "argument" with the building owner over the demolition, which made them aware of the situation.

I still can't believe the city officials let this go on.:beatsme

 

[digger242j]

If you were standing in your driveway watching your idiot neighbor about to cut a large tree limb that is hanging directly over your car - do you move your car out of prudence or leave it parked there?

You haven't seen my car.

BTW, if you recall, the building inspector that had checked the job committed suicide a week later:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/13/tragedy-strikes-again-philly-building-inspector-cleared-of-wrongdoing-in-building-collapse-commits-suicide/

 

[CM1995]

You haven't seen my car.

Ha! Good one.

The video in the news article was taken 3 days before the building collapsed. After watching the video, I am astonished this wasn't shut down immediately.

 

[stock]

An update..........


Feds Fine Firms in Building Collapse

By: Kathy Matheson - ASSOCIATED PRESS

PHILADELPHIA (AP) Federal officials cited glaring violations of accepted safety standards in proposing nearly $400,000 in fines against two companies involved in a botched building demolition in Philadelphia that killed six people.

The willful and serious breaches by Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting led to the collapse of a large masonry wall onto a thrift store, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

"If these employees had simply followed the most basic safety precautions, no lives would have been lost," said David Michaels, an assistant secretary in the U.S. Labor Department.

The companies' respective owners, Griffin Campbell and Sean Benschop, have 15 days to respond to the citations. Their lawyers did not immediately return calls for comment.

Workers had been knocking down a vacant four-story structure in June when an unsupported wall crashed down onto an adjacent Salvation Army store filled with shoppers, killing six and injuring more than a dozen.

The demolition site was chaotic and dangerous, according to the 12 citations issued. Campbell, the prime contractor, was fined $313,000 for violations such as not razing the building from the top down; leaving an unsupported wall more than one-story high; failing to commission an engineering survey; and not providing hard hats for employees.

Benschop's firm, a subcontractor, was penalized $84,000 for violations, including failing to provide employees with fall protection and allowing the unsupported wall to stand.

Benschop himself remains the only person criminally charged in the case so far. He faces six counts of involuntary manslaughter for allegedly operating heavy equipment while high on marijuana and painkillers.

A grand jury has been investigating the case for months. Lawyers representing survivors and the families of those who died also want to hold responsible the owner of the site and the Salvation Army; both have been named as defendants in lawsuits.

Philadelphia-area OSHA director Domenick Salvatore said in a conference call with reporters that “other entities" remain under investigation, but he would not name them. OSHA has until the six-month anniversary of the accident to issue any remaining citations.

Attorney Robert Mongeluzzi, who represents six survivors and the relatives of two victims, expressed doubt that the penalty money would ever be collected. But he said what's significant is “not just the citations, but the factual underpinnings for the citations."

"This was not an unforeseeable catastrophe," Mongeluzzi said.

Michaels, the assistant labor secretary, noted that OSHA fines are capped by law. He described the amounts involved here as “infrequent" and called the accident “an egregious case."

"While these penalties may be small comfort to the victims and their families,"Michaels said, the agency wanted to send a message that “cutting corners on safety will be punished.''