Crane Barge Crew Member — $850,000.00

Case Snapshot

Client

Skilled pile driver and welder in the marine construction industry

Residence

Louisiana Gulf Coast region

Worksite

Crane barge EMILY, Industrial Canal / Industrial Harbor Navigation Canal corridor, New Orleans, Louisiana

Incident Date

August 2, 2018

Incident Type

Mast and gantry collapse following separation of the lower backhitch strap lugs during crane barge operations

Injuries

Facial trauma; closed nasal fracture; bilateral recurrent nasal septal hematoma; traumatic brain injury and post-concussive syndrome; minor neurocognitive impairment; PTSD; chronic lumbar pain

Procedures

Incision and drainage of nasal septal hematoma on August 2, 2018; repeat drainage on August 8, 2018; closed reduction of nasal fracture on August 20, 2018; continuing neurological, neurobehavioral, psychiatric, and neurosurgical evaluation and treatment

Key Legal Issues

Jones Act negligence; vessel unseaworthiness; unsafe crane modification without produced engineering analysis; non-OEM repair work; below-specification weld quality; failure to inspect after a known allision; maritime employer liability for structural equipment failure

Case Result

$850,000.00

Case Page Summary

A Louisiana marine welder and pile driver suffered life-changing injuries when the mast and gantry of a modified crane collapsed aboard the crane barge EMILY on New Orleans’ Industrial Canal. A crane component struck him directly in the face, causing facial trauma, a broken nose, recurrent nasal septal hematomas, traumatic brain injury symptoms, PTSD, chronic back pain, and lasting disruption to the skilled maritime career he had built over years of hard work.

What our investigation uncovered was not a simple equipment failure. It was a chain of preventable decisions. A severely damaged Manitowoc crane had been purchased, rebuilt, modified, and returned to service without any produced engineering analysis showing that the altered configuration was safe. The crane had been repaired outside the manufacturer’s approved process. Its welds measured below required specifications. Manitowoc had not approved the final configuration. Then, one day before the collapse, the barge struck an object while being towed from near Ama to a fabrication yard on the Industrial Canal.

Instead of stopping to determine whether the heavily modified crane remained safe, work continued.

Our client paid the price with his face, his brain, and ultimately his career.

A Skilled Maritime Worker Trusted the Equipment Above Him

There is nothing routine about working from a crane barge on Louisiana’s inland waterways. The Industrial Canal is a narrow, industrial corridor connecting Lake Pontchartrain with the Mississippi River through New Orleans. Tugboats, barges, fabrication traffic, and marine construction equipment move through tight working areas at all hours.

A pile driver and welder working in that environment performs demanding, dangerous work. He wakes early. He works in the heat. He welds. He drives piles. He trusts that the crane moving tons of steel overhead is structurally sound because someone was supposed to make sure of it.

Our client was that worker. He had built his career one weld bead at a time through bridge work, heavy construction, and marine pile driving across the Louisiana Gulf Coast. By 2018, he was earning strong skilled-trade wages, clearing roughly $80,000 annually when his hourly compensation and job-related per diem were combined. He was good at what he did. He showed up. He trusted the equipment.

On August 2, 2018, the crane barge EMILY took that career from him.

What Went Wrong on the Crane Barge EMILY

To understand why this collapse was so serious, it helps to understand the crane itself. The Manitowoc 4600 S4 Ringer crane installed aboard the EMILY relied on major structural components working together in balance. The mast acted as a vertical structural spine supporting the rigging system. The gantry was the A-frame structure above it. The backhitches were critical tension members that held the gantry in its engineered working geometry.

These were not minor parts. They were load-bearing components that helped keep hundreds of tons of crane equipment stable.

On August 2, 2018, the lower backhitch strap lugs separated from both lower backhitch assemblies. When those components released, the mast collapsed onto the boom and the gantry crashed forward. A crane component struck our client directly in the face. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital that same day.

Over the next three weeks, he underwent two drainage procedures to remove blood accumulating inside his nasal cavity. He then required a closed reduction to realign the fractured nasal bones. His injuries did not end with the visible trauma. The collapse also led to neurological, neurobehavioral, psychiatric, and spinal problems that continued long after the initial emergency care.

This was not bad luck. It was the foreseeable result of a dangerous chain of decisions.

The Prior-Day Allision Made the Failure Even More Troubling

One day before the collapse, the EMILY was being towed from near Ama, Louisiana, to a fabrication yard along the Industrial Canal. During that tow, the barge struck an object.

An allision is not just a bump when a vessel is carrying a heavily modified crane. A sudden impact can introduce shock loading into crane components, especially when those components are already compromised by deficient welds, altered geometry, or unverified repairs.

That is why the August 1 incident mattered. It was a warning sign. The safer course would have been to stop, inspect the crane, evaluate the structural components, and determine whether the equipment remained safe for use.

Instead, operations continued. The next morning, the crane’s mast and gantry collapsed.

The Defense Tried to Minimize the Damage and Spread the Blame

The maritime employer and defense experts attempted to minimize our client’s continuing injuries and distribute responsibility among multiple companies. Their medical experts focused on selected evidence of improvement while disputing parts of the future-care claim. Their liability strategy emphasized the number of companies that had touched the crane, including repair contractors, inspection interests, and towing-related parties.

That argument missed the central point.

The employer made the decision to acquire a severely damaged crane. The employer allowed the crane to be rebuilt and modified outside the manufacturer’s approved process. The employer placed workers beneath that crane. And after a known allision, the employer allowed work to continue without producing evidence of a meaningful structural reassessment.

In cases involving traumatic brain injury, post-concussive symptoms, PTSD, chronic pain, and lost skilled-trade capacity, defense teams often try to narrow the damages picture. They may argue that a worker looked better in selected records, returned to work for a period of time, or did not receive one particular surgical recommendation.

But returning to work does not prove full recovery. Maritime workers often push through symptoms because they need income, feel loyalty to their trade, or believe they have no other choice. That does not erase cognitive problems, psychiatric symptoms, pain, sleep disruption, or reduced work capacity.

How Our Investigation Exposed the Crane’s Defects

When our legal team dug into the technical record, the evidence showed a blueprint for how not to operate a marine construction crane.

The Manitowoc crane had been purchased after sustaining severe damage. Instead of sending it through a manufacturer-approved repair process, the employer brought the work in-house. The project went beyond repair. The crane was modified with a longer boom and a self-erection system that the original backhitch design had not been shown to safely accommodate.

When we looked for the engineering analysis that should have supported modifications of that magnitude, none was produced.

Metallurgical and engineering evidence identified backhitch welds that were smaller than required, fracture patterns consistent with low-cycle fatigue, and calculated weld stresses exceeding allowable American Welding Society values. The repairs had not been completed by a Manitowoc-approved facility. Manitowoc had not reviewed or authorized the final configuration.

Those facts mattered. A maritime employer cannot safely place workers beneath a heavily modified crane without validating whether the equipment can handle foreseeable operating loads. It cannot ignore the manufacturer’s repair path, alter structural components, fail to produce engineering support, and then treat a catastrophic collapse as an unavoidable accident.

Our investigation built the case expert by expert and weld measurement by weld measurement. The goal was to show the full chain of failure: prior crane damage, non-OEM repair work, undocumented structural modification, below-specification weld quality, excessive stress, a known allision, continued operations, and a worker left with permanent consequences.

Jones Act Negligence and Unseaworthiness

This case was built on two principal maritime claims: Jones Act negligence and vessel unseaworthiness.

Under the Jones Act, a maritime employer owes seaman employees a duty of reasonable care. That duty includes providing reasonably safe equipment, maintaining a reasonably safe vessel, and making responsible operational decisions about when machinery is safe to use.

The evidence supported the claim that our client’s employer placed a structurally compromised and improperly modified crane into service without produced engineering validation, without manufacturer approval, and without an adequate reassessment after the documented allision. That is evidence of negligence.

The unseaworthiness claim focused on the condition of the vessel and its equipment. A vessel owner may be liable when a vessel, its equipment, or its appurtenances are not reasonably fit for their intended purpose. A crane with undersized welds, unvalidated modifications, and load-bearing components that fail during foreseeable operations can make a crane barge unseaworthy.

In plain English, the company did not have to intend to hurt our client. It only had to send him to work aboard a vessel equipped with defective machinery.

That is what the evidence showed.

Why the Industrial Canal Location Mattered

This case happened in a specific place: New Orleans’ Industrial Canal, within Louisiana’s inland waterway and marine construction network. That location mattered.

The Industrial Canal connects critical maritime, fabrication, towing, and construction activity. Companies working in this corridor often operate in a tight regional system involving vessel owners, crane operators, repair shops, inspection contractors, fabrication yards, towing interests, and marine construction crews.

Determining who owned the equipment, who approved the repairs, who controlled the tow, who inspected the crane, and who had authority to suspend operations required more than general maritime knowledge. It required understanding how work actually happens on Louisiana’s waterways.

The Young Firm is rooted in Louisiana maritime work. We know these waterways, ports, contractors, and marine operations. That local knowledge helped us trace responsibility from the crane’s prior damage and modification history to the moment the mast and gantry collapsed aboard the EMILY.

Key Lessons for Injured Maritime Workers

This case offers several important lessons for maritime workers injured aboard crane barges, work barges, and marine construction vessels.

A crane’s repair history matters. If a crane, winch, rigging system, or other vessel equipment was damaged before a worker boarded the vessel, the employer may be responsible for making sure it was properly evaluated, repaired, and approved before use.

Structural modifications require engineering support. Lengthening a boom, changing a self-erection system, or altering load-bearing assemblies without documented engineering review creates serious safety concerns. The absence of produced design analysis can become critical evidence.

An allision requires more than a quick visual check. When a crane barge strikes a fixed or submerged object during tow, the impact may introduce shock loading into the crane and vessel structure. Continuing operations without a meaningful reassessment can violate the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace.

Traumatic brain injury and PTSD are real, documentable harms. Cognitive, neurobehavioral, and psychiatric injuries may not appear on an ordinary X-ray. Neuropsychological testing, treating-provider records, neurological evaluation, and psychiatric treatment can help document the full impact.

Returning to work does not prove a worker is fine. Many maritime workers return because of financial pressure, determination, or loyalty to their trade. A temporary return does not erase pain, cognitive limitations, PTSD, sleep problems, or reduced earning capacity.

Loss of a skilled maritime career can create substantial damages. When an injury ends or limits a career in welding, pile driving, crane work, marine construction, or other skilled trades, the economic loss may extend across the worker’s expected work life.

Multiple responsible companies do not eliminate liability. Repair contractors, inspection companies, vessel owners, employers, and towing interests may each have distinct responsibilities. Shared fault does not mean an injured worker is left without a remedy.

About The Young Firm

The Young Firm is a Louisiana maritime and Jones Act injury law firm representing offshore workers, marine construction crews, deckhands, welders, pile drivers, and their families. We investigate vessel casualties, defective crane and rigging systems, unsafe repairs, maintenance failures, and employer decisions that place workers in preventable danger.

Maritime attorney Tim Young has handled crane, rigging, and heavy-equipment cases across the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Our work focuses on telling the complete story: how the equipment was acquired, who changed it, who inspected it, who authorized its continued use, and how those decisions affected the injured worker and family.

Speak With a Louisiana Jones Act Lawyer

Workers injured aboard crane barges, work barges, and marine construction vessels may have claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, lost earnings, medical expenses, pain, disability, and future care. The evidence can disappear quickly, making early preservation of crane records, weld documentation, tow reports, inspection files, and witness testimony especially important.

If you or someone you love was injured aboard a crane barge or marine construction vessel on the Industrial Canal, near Ama, in Harvey, Belle Chasse, Baton Rouge, or elsewhere along Louisiana’s inland waterways and Gulf Coast corridor, we want to hear your story.

Call The Young Firm. Consultations are free, and we only collect a fee when we obtain a recovery for you.

Call us today. We can help you take the next step.

The Young Firm handles Jones Act claims, unseaworthiness claims, maintenance and cure disputes, and maritime personal injury cases throughout Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.