Injured Worker Sues Companies for Deadly Storm Negligence


Cement Plant Tragedy: Employee Sues Companies Over Fatal Storm Incident

A Catastrophic Workplace Failure

In the wake of a devastating storm that struck a cement plant on May 16, 2024, an injured employee, Crosby Ware, has filed a lawsuit against several companies. Ware alleges gross negligence on their part for failing to halt operations during the severe weather conditions, resulting in a crane collapse that fatally injured a colleague and left him critically injured.

Defendants Named in the Lawsuit

The lawsuit names Sesco Cement, Agri-Systems, Lampson International, and McRay Crane & Rigging as defendants. It accuses them of continuing operations “as usual” despite being aware of the impending storm and the risks associated with crane operations in such conditions.

The Devastating Incident

Ware, a truck driver employed to deliver cement to the plant, claims that a crane fell on his vehicle during the storm due to strong winds. The impact left him with “catastrophic injuries” including traumatic injuries to his head, neck, and back. Tragically, a second employee, 72-year-old Juan Francisco Hernandez, was killed by a direct crane hit, according to local TV station KRTK.

Charges of Negligence

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to provide a safe work environment, knowingly exposing employees to dangerous conditions. Ware’s lawyer, Kevin Haynes, denounced the companies’ actions as “despicable,” stating that their “reckless and careless” pursuit of profits had catastrophic consequences.

Extensive Medical Treatment Required

Ware is expected to undergo extensive recovery and medical treatment as a result of his injuries. His legal team seeks to recover maximum damages to cover these expenses and compensate him for the life-altering injuries he has sustained.

Cranes Operated Under Bare Lease Agreement

Lampson International, one of the defendants, responded to a request for comment from LA News Center, clarifying that their crane was rented out under a bare lease agreement. They denied involvement in the operation or maintenance of the crane at the time of the incident and stated that their inspection showed no deficiencies with the equipment.

Data sourced from: