When the Load Comes Down on the Public: Falling-Object Liability on Crane Sites

On July 22, 2026, a San Francisco Superior Court jury returned a $20.7 million verdict to a pedestrian who was struck by a metal wall stud that fell from scaffolding during a downtown hotel renovation. She was not a construction worker. She was sitting outside the building waiting for a ride when the material came down on her head.

That case involved scaffolding, not a crane. But the liability theory that produced the verdict is the same theory that decides dropped-load and falling-object cases on crane sites, and attorneys handling construction injury claims should understand why these cases behave so differently from ordinary worker-injury claims.

What Happened in the San Francisco Case

The plaintiff, a physician assistant visiting the city, was struck outside a Courtyard by Marriott undergoing renovation in October 2019. The initial injury looked minor -- shock and a bump. Over the following months her symptoms developed into what her physicians described as a permanent traumatic brain injury.

Litigation ran nearly seven years and included a mistrial before a five-week retrial. A central issue was why fall protection on the second-level scaffold guardrail -- specifically a toeboard and debris webbing -- was not in place to contain loose material. The jury allocated responsibility among the scaffolding contractor, the general contractor, and an interior wall subcontractor, and awarded roughly $2.5 million in past noneconomic damages, $2.2 million in future medical costs, and $16 million in future noneconomic damages.

Of the $20.7 million awarded, the overwhelming majority was for future harm -- the jury's judgment that the consequences of a single falling object would last the rest of her life.

Why Falling-Object Cases Produce Large Verdicts

In most construction accident cases, the defense has room to argue about the injured person's own conduct: training received, procedures ignored, protective equipment not worn, risks knowingly assumed on a jobsite. When the person struck is a member of the public walking past the site, nearly all of that disappears.

• No comparative fault to argue. A pedestrian on a public sidewalk has no duty to anticipate material falling from overhead.
• No assumption of risk. They accepted no jobsite hazard and signed no site orientation.
• No workers' compensation bar. The exclusive-remedy defense that channels worker claims away from tort recovery does not apply.
• A simple story. The duty at issue -- keep material from leaving the work area -- is one every juror understands without expert translation.

What is left is a causation and damages fight, and a question of which contractor owed the duty to contain the material. That is where expert analysis decides the case.

The Same Exposure Exists on Every Crane Site

Cranes lift loads over sidewalks, streets, adjacent buildings, and occupied structures every day. Anything that leaves the hook or the load travels the same path. In my experience, falling-object incidents involving cranes come from a short list of causes:

• Rigging failure -- an overloaded or damaged sling, an undersized or side-loaded shackle, a choker hitch applied at the wrong angle, a load that slips out of a basket hitch
• Loose material carried on a load -- banding, blocking, tools, or debris riding on top of a pick that was never secured before the lift
• Two-blocking or hoist rope failure -- releasing the entire load at height
• Load-chart overload and boom failure -- a lift attempted outside the crane's rated capacity for that radius and configuration
• Assembly and disassembly incidents -- dropped boom sections, pins, or counterweights during setup or teardown, which is some of the highest-risk work on any crane site
• Uncontained drop zone -- a lift path routed over an area where people, workers or public, were allowed to be

The last one is the crane equivalent of the missing toeboard. The defect is not the equipment; it is the decision to route a suspended load over people who had no idea it was above them.

The Questions a Crane Expert Answers

When I analyze a falling-object case involving crane or rigging work, these are the issues that determine liability:

1. Was there a lift plan, and did it address the public? A critical or complex lift should have a written plan identifying the load weight, configuration, swing path, and the area to be cleared and controlled.
2. Was the swing and travel path routed over occupied areas? If the load traveled over a sidewalk or an active roadway, someone made that decision, and someone was responsible for closing that area.
3. Was the area barricaded? OSHA 1926.1424 requires control of the swing radius hazard area, and 1926.1425 addresses keeping employees clear of suspended loads. Public protection is typically handled through sidewalk closures, covered walkways, and flagging governed by local permits.
4. Was a qualified rigger used? OSHA requires a qualified rigger for assembly/disassembly work and for lifts where workers are within the fall zone. Training and qualification records tell that story.
5. Who was the designated A/D director? Under OSHA 1926.1404, assembly and disassembly must be supervised by a designated person who understands the procedures. Dropped components during A/D almost always trace back to this role.
6. Was the equipment inspected? Shift and monthly inspections under 1926.1412, and sling inspection criteria under ASME B30.9, establish whether the failed component should have been removed from service beforehand.
7. Was the load secured before the pick? Loose material on a load is a preventable, well-known hazard addressed in ASME B30.5 practice and standard pre-lift procedure.

Who Ends Up Responsible

Falling-object claims usually involve several parties whose duties overlap: the crane owner, the lift or erection contractor, the rigger's employer, the general contractor as controlling employer for site safety, and sometimes the property owner who contracted the work over an occupied public space.

The San Francisco case shows how that fractures at trial. The general contractor and one subcontractor settled before the jury was seated, leaving a single trade contractor to defend liability alone -- and the jury still assigned the largest share of damages to the party that had already settled out. Sorting who actually owned the duty, early, changes the settlement math for everyone. For more on this, see our article on crane accident liability.

Evidence to Preserve Immediately

Falling-object cases are frequently lost before an expert is ever retained, because the proof is cleaned up within days. If you have a case involving a dropped load or falling material from crane work, get the following secured:

• The failed rigging hardware itself -- the sling, shackle, or hook, unaltered and untested
• Load Moment Indicator data and crane telematics, which can be overwritten as the machine continues working
• The lift plan, load chart used, and the load's documented weight
• Shift, monthly, and annual inspection records for the crane and rigging
• Pre-lift meeting and toolbox talk records, and the identity of the designated A/D director and qualified rigger
• Barricade, flagger, and sidewalk-closure permit documentation for the day of the incident
• Site photographs and video taken before cleanup, including from adjacent buildings and traffic cameras

Our article on evidence preservation in crane accidents covers the spoliation letter contents in more detail.

Get a Crane and Rigging Analysis of Your Case

Matthew J. Stull has over 27 years of hands-on crane and rigging experience, including assembly and disassembly direction on crawler cranes and super lifts, and holds NCCCO certifications in lattice boom crawler, lattice boom truck, telescopic boom, and signalperson. He provides investigation and expert analysis for attorneys handling dropped-load, struck-by, and crane accident litigation nationwide.

Call (570) 903-7119 or send a message to discuss your case.