Hyatt Walkway Collapse

Hyatt Walkway Collapse The Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkways collapse resulted in a toll of 114 dead and an additional 200 injured, not to mention the million of dollars lost. The accident was caused by the failure of connections between the second and fourth walkways across the atrium, which resulted in these collapsing onto the crowd in the first-floor atrium below. Of course, someone had to be responsible for the death toll and the accident caused and I will be listing the characters involved and their part of guilt in the accident.

Responsible character number 1: the owner (the future beneficiary). As it has been mentioned, in October 1979, when the hotel was still under construction, a collapse had already occurred as over 2700 feet of atrium roof fell due to a "a roof connection failure." As a direct consequence of this collapse, the engineering firm that was handling the design "promised to review all steel connections and requested on-site representation during construction." The additional cost that was involved in such a measure forced the owner to reject the request.

We can only briefly stop and consider this for a moment: the owner knew that the construction may be unsafe and already had the precedent of a collapse. He additionally knew that the design may have been faulty and that the steel connections should probably have been reviewed, however, he preferred to leave the things as they were because the cost would have surpassed his calculated budget.

I don't really have to insist on such an act, but should only mention that, as far as the ethics are concerned, the owner may stand the highest level of guilt, because he should have been the most concerned character of all regarding the safety issue, as it would have been his establishment in the end. He was not Responsible character number 2: the engineering firm. In my opinion, the engineering firm is responsible from more than one point-of-view. The first issue has been described here above.

The engineering firm was aware of the fact that the steel connections may have been unsafe and that these needed a review. Upon the owner's refusal, it should have taken a stand, convinced the owner of the necessity of such a review and of the risks the persons involved subjected themselves to. The company, however, preferred to let the issue drop and continue working on the site. Additionally, the engineering firm's original designed was unable to support the minimum support value required by the Kansas City Building Code.

This was a minimum of 151 kN, while the original design was capable of supporting only 90 kN. It was clear that the engineering firm involved was either incompetent or plain stupid, since the difference between the required minimum and the actual minimum in the original design is huge. However, the engineering firm's responsibility in the issue does not end here.

The fabricator, as we know, "changed the design from a one-rod to a two-rod system to simplify the assembly task, doubling the load on the connector," which eventually was a direct cause of the collapse. The fabricator sworn under oath in court that it had telephoned the engineering firm and had obtained the approval for the modifications in the design. The engineering firm upheld that it had never received such a call. Hence, we notice here a lack of communication for which both companies are responsible.

In theory, these should have worked closely together and should have cooperated on the implementation on the design and on any additional changes it had required. One phone was made from one part to the other and this was deemed not to have been received. So, enter responsible character number 3: the fabricator.

Quoting again from the engineering website at www.engineering.com,"the fabricator changed the design from a one-rod to a two-rod system to simplify the assembly task, doubling the load on the connector, which ultimately resulted in the walkways collapse." In this sentence, we have both the direct cause of the accident and the direct responsible part for it. We see here both incompetence and malevolence: the fabricator chose to modify the design so that it could assemble the structure quicker and get the work done at lesser costs.

We are in no doubt about who carried the greatest responsibility of all, since it is clearly stated that this eventual change was the ultimate cause of the collapse. Additionally, we should mention that "the engineering firm did receive revised drawings.