Castillo Complaint

Filing # 197012693 E-Filed 04/25/2024 03:10:32 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
GEMMALYN CASTILLO, individually, GENERAL JURISDICTION

CASE NO:
Plaintiff,
vs.
KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a foreign

corporation; MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.,
a foreign limited Partnership; PHOENIX
RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC.,
Domestic Limited Liability Company,
GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC,
a Foreign Profit Corporation, and CG RIVERWALK
LP, a Domestic Limited Partnership,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO (hereinafter referred to as
“CASTILLO”), by and through his undersigned attorney, files this lawsuit against the Defendants,
KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “KAST”), a Florida Limited Liability
Company, MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as “MAXIM CRANE”), a
Foreign Limited Partnership, PHOENIX RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC (hereinafter referred to
as “PHOENIX”), a Domestic Limited Liability Company, GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES,
INC., (hereinafter referred to as “GABLES RESIDENTIAL”), a Foreign Profit Corporation, and
CG RIVERWALK LP, (hereinafter referred to as “CG RIVERWALK”), a Domestic Limited
Partnership, and states as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages in excess of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000.00)
and is otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants and the subject matter in this action
consistent with section 48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes, because each Defendant committed a
tortious act within this state. Moreover, personal jurisdiction may be exercised over such
parties because each has minimum contacts with Florida such that maintenance of this suit
does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and each purposefully
availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the State of Florida, thus invoking
the benefits and protections of its laws.
3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, CASTILLO, a teacher who specializes in
educating disabled children, was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida.
4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, KAST, was and is a Florida Limited
Liability Company organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Defendant has its principal
place of business located at 701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33407.
5. Defendant, KAST, was the general contractor for the construction of the Riverwalk
Residences, located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (the subject
project) and was responsible for hiring and supervising various subcontractors and companies
hired to perform work and services at the project.
6. At all times material hereto, Defendant, MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.
(“MAXIM”) is a foreign limited partnership with its principal place of business in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.
7. Defendant, MAXIM, provided labor and services on the project and was
responsible for providing heavy lifting equipment, crane rentals, and heavy transport services
and/or supervision and construction services for the subject project.
8. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PHOENIX, was and is a Domestic Limited
Liability Company with its principal place of business located at 1855 Dickerson Drive,
Mableton, GA 30126.
9. Defendant, PHOENIX, provided labor and services on the project and was involved
in the project by providing specialized engineering expertise in the lift planning, specialized
rigging planning and/or heavy transportation aspects of the project.
10. At all times material hereto, Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, was and is a Domestic
Limited Partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida.
11. Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, was and is the owner of the Riverwalk Residences,
located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
12. At all times material hereto, Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, was and is a
Foreign Profit Corporation with its principal place of business located at 3399 Peachtree Road
NE, Suite 600, Atlanta, FL 30326.
13. Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, was the developer of the Riverwalk
Residences, located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, and was
responsible for selecting, hiring, and supervising various subcontractors and companies hired
to perform work and services at the project.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14. At all times material, Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, was selected, hired,
and/or contracted by Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, as the developer of the Riverwalk
Residences.
15. At all times material, Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, was the developer of
the construction of the Riverwalk Residences, located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33301.
16. At all times material, Defendant, KAST, was hired and/or contracted by Defendant,
GABLES RESIDENTIAL, as the general contractor for the construction of the Riverwalk
Residences, located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
17. At all times material, Defendant, MAXIM CRANE, had been hired and/or
contracted by Defendant, KAST, for the installation, supervision, supply, and/or use of crane
services on the subject property.
18. At all times material, Defendant, MAXIM, was responsible for supervising,
operating, providing, constructing, and/or assembling the crane that was used at the
construction site, located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
19. At all times material, Defendant, PHOENIX, had been hired and/or contracted by
Defendant, KAST for crane assembly, climbing, dismantling, lift planning, specialized rigging
planning, transportation, and the installation, supervision, supply, and/or use of crane services
on the subject property.
20. At all times material, Defendant, PHOENIX, was responsible for supervising,
operating, constructing, and/or assembling the crane that was used at the construction site,
located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

21. The Defendants had an obligation and a duty to conduct their construction
activities, including the maintenance, operation, construction, and supervision of the subject
crane such that those activities would not cause a danger to the general public, including the
Plaintiff.
22. On or about April 4, 2024, Plaintiff, CASTILLO, was a passenger in a Tesla,
crossing the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge, adjacent to the construction of the Riverwalk
Residences, located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (herein after
“the Property”).
23. At said time and place, Defendant, KAST, negligently and carelessly allowed an
unsafe condition on its construction site and/or negligently and carelessly operated and/or
constructed and/or installed and/or supervising the use of the crane equipment such that it came
crashing down onto traffic below.
24. At said time and place, Defendant, PHOENIX, negligently and carelessly operated
and/or constructed and/or installed and/or supervising the use of the crane equipment such that
it came crashing down onto traffic below.
25. At said time and place, Defendant, MAXIM, negligently and carelessly operated
and/or constructed and/or installed and/or supervising the use of the crane equipment such that
it came crashing down onto traffic below.
26. Defendant, PHOENIX, KAST, and MAXIM’s negligent and/or careless and/or
reckless actions caused a portion of the heavy metal crane that was being utilized on the subject
property to collapse from a significant height and crash on the vehicle in which the Plaintiff,
CASTILLO, was a passenger.

27. Plaintiff, CASTILLO, was crushed by the impact of the heavy crane and suffered
severe and serious head and facial trauma.
28. Plaintiff, CASTILLO, could only think of her four (4) children as she thought she
was going die when locked inside the crushed Tesla while bleeding from her open head wound.
29. The Defendants’ acts and/or omissions evidence a reckless disregard for human life
and safety.
30. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff, CASTILLO, suffered
debilitating, severe and permanent emotional and physical injuries as a result of the crane
crashing into the vehicle she occupied.
NONDELEGABLE DUTIES
31. Defendants, KAST, PHOENIX and MAXIM, owed common law, contractual
and/or statutory nondelegable duties to the public at large, including the Plaintiff, to provide
safe, construction, engineering, labor, materials, supervision, labor and services relative to the
subject project, especially given that the crane was being used alongside a busy roadway with
innocent passerby. Given that the duties to the public at large were nondelegable, KAST,
PHOENIX and MAXIM are accountable and responsible for the actions of their
subcontractors, employees and/or agents.
32. Further, the work, including the use of the crane, that the respective Defendants
performed on the project was ultrahazardous in nature and if not done properly and safely, the
work and the subject of the work by its very nature was substantially certain to cause serious
injury or death. Given the nature of the danger and safety risks the general public and
GEMMALYN CASTILLO were subjected to, the Defendants each had nondelegable duties to
prevent and avoid serious risks of harm associated with the provision of materials used and/or
construction of the bridge.
COUNT I: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST

KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Plaintiff, CASTILLO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-32 as though fully set forth
herein.
33. Defendant KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC owed GEMMALYN CASTILLO a
duty of reasonable care in the planning and/or hiring of the construction team, including all
subcontractors and in the supervision, maintenance, operation, and/or installation of the subject
crane on the project.
34. KAST breached its duty of care and departed from the prevailing industry
standards in the following ways:
a. Failing to properly create, and implement a safety plan to re-route traffic away from
the construction site while the crane was being assembled;
b. Failing to properly inspect the crane before it was assembled,
c. Failing to appreciate the risks associated with using assembling a crane that is
defective, unstable, not strong enough, does not meet specifications and/or has not
passed the proper inspections;
d. Failing to institute protective measures, safety planning and signal devices so as to
protect the public from the risks associated with the dangerous and defective crane
assembly;
e. Carelessly and negligently placing the construction project on a time setting that
was unreasonable, dangerous and constituted a rush to completion which exposed
GEMMALYN CASTILLO, the general public, and workers to unreasonable risk

of harm due to an accelerated construction schedule which departed from prevailing
professional standards of care;
f. Failing to properly inspect and/or verify the inspection of the crane before the
assembly;
g. Taking shortcuts on materials and techniques, and attempting to complete the
project on an unreasonably accelerated schedule;
h. Failing to move and assemble the crane correctly;
i. Failing to use the proper support in the assembly of the crane into its final position;
j. Failing to use the proper support while assembling the crane on April 4, 2024;
k. Ignoring the impending signs of failure, collapse, fractures, cracks, defects, and
other indications which warranted proper analysis before continuing with the
assembly of the crane;
l. Putting workers and the general public in the immediate risk of harm by not
performing proper analysis and evaluation on the impending signs of failure,
collapse, and other defects;
m. Disregarding the appropriate rules, regulations, and statutes applicable in the
assembling of the crane;
n. Failing to follow its own safety policies and procedures;
o. Failing to protect GEMMALYN CASTILLO from bodily harm;
p. Failing to coordinate efforts to assess, evaluate, and implement the assembly of a
crane so as to not create an unstable and defective crane;
q. Failing to close or request the closing of the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge to
vehicular traffic below the dangerous structure;

r. Failing to develop, execute and/or maintain an effective maintenance of traffic plan;
s. Negligently and carelessly mismanaging the construction site;
t. Failing to prevent the crane collapse;
u. Failing to carry out the project as required by the plans; and
v. Failing to otherwise use due care in connection with its operations.
w. Other acts of negligence yet to be discovered.
35. KAST was responsible to complete the project, including the operation,
construction, and assembly of the crane in accordance and in conformity with construction and
engineering principles equivalent to the standards of care; however, its performance relative to
the crane collapse fell below the standards of care.
36. Defendant breached the aforementioned duties and caused the crane collapse on
April 4, 2024.
37. As a result of the Defendant’s negligence and the resulting crane collapse, the
Plaintiff, Castillo, was injured.
38. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendant, the
Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO, suffered losses, including but not limited to, bodily
injury, and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of
capacity for the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care
treatment, aggravation or acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings or ability to earn
money. These losses are either permanent or continuing and the Plaintiff will suffer the losses
in the future.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO,
demands judgment against Defendant KAST for damages, costs and such further relief as the Court
deems just and proper, and specifically reserves the right to seek punitive damages pursuant to
Florida law and further demands a trial by jury.
COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Plaintiff, CASTILLO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-32 as though fully set
forth herein:
39. Defendant KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC owed GEMMALYN CASTILLO a
duty of reasonable care in the planning and/or hiring of the construction team, including all
subcontractors. Common law duties were owed to the public at large, including Plaintiff, which
were separate and apart from the standards of care of Defendant as a purveyor of labor,
equipment, materials and/or services on the project.
40. KAST breached its duty of care and was negligent in its provision of labor,
equipment, materials and/or services and/or in performance of its work relative to crane
assembly. It also negligently failed to ensure the safety of the public during the assembly of
the crane.
41. KAST further breached its duty of care in failing to properly supervise and inspect
the installation, assembly, and construction of the crane and/or failing to supervise and inspect
its specific scope of work and/or materials. As a result, the crane was unsafe, unstable and
collapsed.
42. Defendant breached the aforementioned duties and caused the crane collapse on
April 4, 2024.
43. As a result of the Defendant’s negligence and the resulting crane collapse, the
Plaintiff, Castillo, was injured.
in the future.
demands judgment against Defendant KAST for damages, costs and such further relief as the Court
deems just and proper, and specifically reserves the right to seek punitive damages pursuant to
Florida law and further demands a trial by jury.
COUNT III: STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT,

KAST CONSTRUCTION LLC
forth herein:
45. KAST’s participation in the construction site, including the assembly of the crane,
as general contractor occurred under circumstances which reflect abnormally dangerous
construction activity and, as painfully proved by the catastrophic failure of the crane and the
resulting death and severe injuries, there existed a high degree of risk of harm to both
GEMMALYN CASTILLO, and to the general public who traveled underneath and/or were in
proximity of the defective and unstable crane structure at the time of its catastrophic collapse.
46. The nature of the construction project itself, the assembly of the crane, as well as
the project site which had a heavy flow of traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists, combined to place
in context the abnormally dangerous effort of constructing, installing, and/or assembling the
crane without adequate measures to guard against catastrophic failure. It should have been
obvious to KAST that should that crane catastrophically fail, there would be serious and
significant ramifications likely to involve death and injury to numerous individuals who
happen to be underneath the crane at the time of failure.
47. The value to the community to construct, install, and/or assemble the crane while
traffic was operating underneath it was highly outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
48. These factors combine to impose on KAST conditions consistent with strict liability
for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities.
49. The careless, egregious and outrageous acts constituting departures from prevailing
professional standards of construction and engineering care created such a risk of harm to the
general public and to GEMMALYN CASTILLO in particular, and because of the magnitude
of the risk, the surrounding circumstances of exposure of the general public to such magnitude
of risk, and the significance and the likelihood of the harm should there be a failure of the
magnitude that did in fact occur, that strict liability attaches. No doubt there was a high degree
of risk of serious personal and property injury to the general public and GEMMALYN
CASTILLO, such that the significance, the exposure, and the likelihood of harm must have
been apparent to KAST which disregarded and failed to account for the likelihood of said harm.
As a result, KAST failed to utilize the utmost level of care in its construction undertaking.
50. As a result of the construction and engineering practices exercised by KAST with
respect to the construction, installation, management, control, and/or supervision of the crane
assembly, KAST is strictly liable in tort for all injuries and damages to GEMMALYN
CASTILLO.
in the future.
demands judgment against Defendant KAST for damages, costs and such further relief as the
Court deems just and proper, and specifically reserves the right to seek punitive damages
pursuant to Florida law and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IV: RES IPSA LOQUITUR AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAST

CONSTRUCTION, LLC
forth herein:
52. Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine and rule of evidence that applies when
circumstantial evidence can be used to infer negligence.
53. Defendant, KAST, created the unreasonably dangerous condition and that but for
the Defendant’s negligence in failing to properly supervise and inspect the installation,
assembly, and construction of the crane and/or failing to supervise and inspect its specific
scope of work and/or materials. As a result, the crane was unsafe, unstable and collapsed.
54. That at the time of the incident, the crane involved in the subject incident was under
the sole control of Defendant, KAST, as the general contractor for the construction of the
Riverwalk Residences.
55. The incident and subsequent injury to Plaintiff is of a kind that does not ordinarily
occur without negligence.

56. The crane was out of the Plaintiff’s control; thus, the incident and subsequent injury
to the Plaintiff was not due to any voluntary action by the Plaintiff.
57. Defendant’s negligence as described herein was the direct and proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s injuries.
in the future.
demands judgment against Defendant KAST for damages, costs and such further relief as the
Court deems just and proper, and specifically reserves the right to seek punitive damages
COUNT V: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, MAXIM

CRANE WORKS, L.P.
herein:
59. Defendant, MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P., provided crane, transport,
installation, operation, and logistics services to the construction of the Riverwalk Residences.
60. Defendant owed GEMMALYN CASTILLO a duty of reasonable care in providing,
installing, creating, constructing, operating, and/or leasing cranes.

61. MAXIM breached its duty of care and departed from the prevailing industry
standards in providing a defective, unstable, unsafe and/or dangerous crane.
62. MAXIM also breached its duty of care in failing to properly supervise, manage,
control, and/or inspect the construction and installation of the crane.
63. As a result, the crane collapsed on April 4, 2024.
64. MAXIM also deviated and departed from the prevailing professional standards of
care in the construction and installation of the crane.
in the future.
demands judgment against Defendant MAXIM for damages, costs and such further relief as
the Court deems just and proper, and specifically reserves the right to seek punitive damages
COUNT VI: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.
forth herein:
66. Defendant MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P. owed GEMMALYN CASTILLO a
duty of reasonable care in the performance of its work and services to the construction of the
Riverwalk Residences. Common law duties were owed to the public at large, including
Plaintiff, which were separate and apart from the standards of care of Defendant as a purveyor
of labor, equipment, materials and/or services on the project.
67. MAXIM breached its duty of care and was negligent in its provision of labor,
the crane.
68. MAXIM further breached its duty of care in failing to properly supervise and
inspect the installation, assembly, and construction of the crane and/or failing to supervise and
inspect its specific scope of work and/or materials. As a result, the crane was unsafe, unstable
and collapsed.
in the future.
COUNT VII: STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT,

MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.
forth herein:
70. MAXIM’s participation in the construction site, including providing the crane
and/or the assembly of the crane, occurred under circumstances which reflect abnormally
dangerous construction activity and, as painfully proved by the catastrophic failure of the crane
and the resulting death and severe injuries, there existed a high degree of risk of harm to both
obvious to MAXIM that should that crane catastrophically fail, there would be serious and
73. These factors combine to impose on MAXIM conditions consistent with strict
liability for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities.
been apparent to MAXIM which disregarded and failed to account for the likelihood of said
harm. As a result, MAXIM failed to utilize the utmost level of care in its construction
undertaking.
75. As a result of the construction and engineering practices exercised by MAXIM with
respect to the construction, installation, management, control, and/or supervision of the crane
assembly, MAXIM is strictly liable in tort for all injuries and damages to GEMMALYN
CASTILLO.
in the future.

COUNT VIII: RES IPSA LOQUITUR AGAINST DEFENDANT, MAXIM CRANE
WORKS, L.P.
forth herein:
78. Defendant, MAXIM, created the unreasonably dangerous condition and that but for
the Defendant’s negligence in failing to properly supervise and inspect the installation,
79. That at the time of the incident, the crane of the subject incident was under the sole
control of Defendant, Maxim.

in the future.
COUNT IX: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, PHOENIX

RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC
herein.
84. Defendant PHOENIX RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC provided specialized
engineering expertise in the lift planning, rigging planning, crane, heavy transport, installation,
operation, and logistics services integral to the construction of the Riverwalk Residences, and
it owed GEMMALYN CASTILLO a duty of reasonable care in the planning, assembling,
installation, operation, and construction of the crane.
85. PHOENIX breached its duty of care and departed from the prevailing industry
standards in providing a defective, unstable, unsafe and/or dangerous crane. As a result, the
crane collapsed.
86. PHOENIX also breached its duty of care in failing to properly supervise, manage,
control, and/or inspect the planning, assembling, installation, and construction of the crane.
87. PHOENIX also deviated and departed from the prevailing professional standards
of care in the planning, assembling, installation, operation, and construction of the crane.
in the future.
demands judgment against Defendant PHOENIX for damages, costs and such further relief as
COUNT X: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT PHOENIX RIGGING &

ERECTING, LLC.
forth herein:
89. Defendant PHOENIX owed GEMMALYN CASTILLO a duty of reasonable care
in the performance of its work in the planning, assembling, operation, installation, and
construction of the crane. Common law duties were owed to the public at large, including
Plaintiff, which were separate and apart from the standards of care of Defendant as a purveyor
of services on the project.
90. PHOENIX breached its duty of care and was negligent in its provision of labor,
the crane.
91. PHOENIX further breached its duty of care in failing to properly supervise and
inspect the installation, assembly, and construction of the crane and/or failing to supervise and
inspect its specific scope of work and/or materials. As a result, the crane was unsafe, unstable
and collapsed.
in the future.
COUNT XI: STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT,

PHOENIX RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC.
forth herein:
93. PHOENIX’s participation in the construction site, including providing the crane
and/or the assembly of the crane, occurred under circumstances which reflect abnormally
dangerous construction activity and, as painfully proved by the catastrophic failure of the crane
and the resulting death and severe injuries, there existed a high degree of risk of harm to both
obvious to PHOENIX that should that crane catastrophically fail, there would be serious and
96. These factors combine to impose on PHOENIX conditions consistent with strict
liability for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities.
been apparent to PHOENIX which disregarded and failed to account for the likelihood of said
harm. As a result, PHOENIX failed to utilize the utmost level of care in its construction
undertaking.
98. As a result of the construction and engineering practices exercised by PHOENIX
with respect to the construction, installation, management, control, and/or supervision of the
crane assembly, PHOENIX is strictly liable in tort for all injuries and damages to
GEMMALYN CASTILLO.
in the future.
COUNT XII: RES IPSA LOQUITUR AGAINST DEFENDANT, PHOENIX

RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC
forth herein:

101. Defendant, PHOENIX, created the unreasonably dangerous condition and that but
for the Defendant’s negligence in failing to properly supervise and inspect the installation,
102. That at the time of the incident, the crane of the subject incident was under the sole
control of Defendant, PHOENIX.
in the future.

COUNT XIII: NEGLIGENT SELECTION, HIRING, AND RETENTION OF AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC) AS TO
DEFENDANT, GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.
herein:
107. Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, hired independent contractors to provide

services for the construction of the Riverwalk Residences.
108. At all times material hereto, Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, selected and
hired Defendant, KAST, as the general contractor for the construction of the Riverwalk
Residences.
109. At all times material hereto, Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, had a duty to
use reasonable care and diligence in selecting and hiring its independent contractors. This duty
included, but was not limited to, ensuring that the independent contractor and its personnel
were properly licensed, qualified, experienced, and fit for the job of constructing the Riverwalk
Residences. This duty also included consulting with the independent contractors and/or its staff
to ensure that the independent contractors were up to the job of operating the crane used in the
construction site in a safe, appropriate manner, supervising the independent contractors as
necessary to uphold safety around the construction site, and refraining from selecting, hiring,
and/or retaining the independent contractors if it reasonably appeared that the independent
contractors lacked the experience, skill, qualifications, training, and/or staffing to do the job
properly and safely on a consistent basis.
110. Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, breached its duty and was negligent in
selecting, hiring, and retaining KAST to be the general contractor in the construction of the
Riverwalk Residences. GABLES RESIDENTIAL took no steps to ensure that KAST was fit
and qualified to do such a job in a proper and safe manner. GABLES RESIDENTIAL failed
to communicate or consult with KAST to ensure that there was an adequate plan in place, and
adequately trained staff to do the job, and failed to supervise KAST.
111. As a direct and proximate result of GABLES RESIDENTIAL’s negligent selection,
hiring and retention of KAST, the Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO, suffered serious and
permanent bodily injuries as a result of the incident
112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL’s,
negligent selection, hiring and retention of its independent contractor, the Plaintiff,
GEMMALYN CASTILLO, suffered losses, including but not limited to bodily injury, and
resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the
enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care treatment, activation,
aggravation, and/or acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of wages, and loss of the ability to
earn money in the future. These losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff
will suffer these losses in the future.

demands judgment against Defendant GABLES RESIDENTIAL for damages, costs and such
further relief as the Court deems just and proper, and specifically reserves the right to seek
punitive damages pursuant to Florida law and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT XIV: NEGLIGENT SELECTION, HIRING, AND RETENTION OF AN

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.) AS TO
DEFENDANT, GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC
herein:

hired Defendant, MAXIM, for the installation, supervision, supply, and/or use of crane services
on the subject property.
selecting, hiring, and retaining MAXIM to be the general contractor in the construction of the
Riverwalk Residences. GABLES RESIDENTIAL took no steps to ensure that MAXIM was
fit and qualified to do such a job in a proper and safe manner. GABLES RESIDENTIAL failed
to communicate or consult with MAXIM to ensure that there was an adequate plan in place,
and adequately trained staff to do the job, and failed to supervise MAXIM.
selecting, hiring, and retaining MAXIM, for the installation, supervision, supply, and/or use of
crane services on the subject property. GABLES RESIDENTIAL took no steps to ensure that
MAXIM was fit and qualified to do such a job in a proper and safe manner. GABLES
RESIDENTIAL failed to communicate or consult with MAXIM to ensure that there was an
adequate plan in place, and adequately trained staff to do the job, and failed to supervise
MAXIM.
hiring and retention of MAXIM, the Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO, suffered serious and
permanent bodily injuries as a result of the incident.
COUNT XV: NEGLIGENT SELECTION, HIRING, AND RETENTION OF AN

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (PHOENIX RIGGING & ERECTING, LLC) AS
TO DEFENDANT, GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.
herein:

hired Defendant, PHOENIX, for crane assembly, climbing, dismantling, lift planning,
specialized rigging planning, transportation, and the installation, supervision, supply, and/or
use of crane services on the subject property.
selecting, hiring, and retaining PHOENIX, for crane assembly, climbing, dismantling, lift
planning, specialized rigging planning, transportation, and the installation, supervision, supply,
and/or use of crane services on the subject property. GABLES RESIDENTIAL took no steps
to ensure that MAXIM was fit and qualified to do such a job in a proper and safe manner.
GABLES RESIDENTIAL failed to communicate or consult with PHOENIX to ensure that
there was an adequate plan in place, and adequately trained staff to do the job, and failed to
supervise PHOENIX.
hiring and retention of PHOENIX, the Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO, suffered serious
and permanent bodily injuries as a result of the incident.

punitive damages pursuant to Florida law and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT XIV: NEGLIGENT SELECTION, HIRING, AND RETENTION OF

DEVELOPER, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, SERVICES, LLC, AGAINST DEFENDANT,
CG RIVERWALK LP.
forth herein:
126. Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, hired independent contractors and/or developers to

provide services for the construction of the Riverwalk Residences.
127. At all times material hereto, Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, selected and hired
GABLES RESIDENTIAL, to design, plan, and develop the Riverwalk Residences, located at
333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
128. At all times material hereto, Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, had a duty to use
reasonable care and diligence in selecting and hiring its independent contractors. This duty
129. Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, breached its duty and was negligent in selecting,
hiring, and retaining GABLES RESIDENTIAL, for designing, planning, developing, and
supervising of the subject property. CG RIVERWALK took no steps to ensure that GABLES
RESIDENTIAL was fit and qualified to do such a job in a proper and safe manner. CG
RIVERWALK failed to communicate or consult with GABLES RESIDENTIAL to ensure that
there was an adequate plan in place, and adequately trained staff to do the job, and failed to
supervise GABLES RESIDENTIAL.
130. As a direct and proximate result of CG RIVERWALK’s negligent selection, hiring
and retention of GABLES RESIDENTIAL, the Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO, suffered
serious and permanent bodily injuries as a result of the incident
131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, CG RIVERWALK’s, negligent
selection, hiring and retention of its independent contractor, the Plaintiff, GEMMALYN
CASTILLO, suffered losses, including but not limited to bodily injury, and resulting pain and
suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,
expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care treatment, activation, aggravation, and/or
acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of wages, and loss of the ability to earn money in the
future. These losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer these
losses in the future

punitive damages pursuant to Florida law and demands a trial by jury
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO, in the above-styled action, hereby demands a trial
by jury on all of the issues so triable.
DATED this 25 day of April 2024.
GOLDBERG & ROSEN, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3650
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel:(305) 374-4200
Fax:(305) 374-8024
BY__/s/ Judd G. Rosen, Esq.

Judd G. Rosen, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 0458953
Brett M. Rosen, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 0044859
Jana T. Chebat, Esq., Florida Bar No. 1039205
Primary E-mail: pleadings@goldbergandrosen.com
Secondary E-mail: jana@goldbergandrosen.com;
jgrsecy@goldbergandrosen.com;
bmrsecy@goldbergandrosen.com

Castillo Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Castillo Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Castillo Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing # 197012693 E-Filed 04/25/2024 03:10:32 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH

GEMMALYN CASTILLO, individually, GENERAL JURISDICTION

KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a foreign

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, GEMMALYN CASTILLO (hereinafter referred to as

KAST CONSTRUCTION, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “KAST”), a Florida Limited Liability

Company, MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as “MAXIM CRANE”), a

as “PHOENIX”), a Domestic Limited Liability Company, GABLES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES,

INC., (hereinafter referred to as “GABLES RESIDENTIAL”), a Foreign Profit Corporation, and

CG RIVERWALK LP, (hereinafter referred to as “CG RIVERWALK”), a Domestic Limited

Partnership, and states as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

and is otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court.

the benefits and protections of its laws.

3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, CASTILLO, a teacher who specializes in

educating disabled children, was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

hired to perform work and services at the project.

6. At all times material hereto, Defendant, MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P.

and/or supervision and construction services for the subject project.

rigging planning and/or heavy transportation aspects of the project.

Limited Partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida.

located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

NE, Suite 600, Atlanta, FL 30326.

13. Defendant, GABLES RESIDENTIAL, was the developer of the Riverwalk

to perform work and services at the project.

and/or contracted by Defendant, CG RIVERWALK, as the developer of the Riverwalk

services on the subject property.

on the subject property.

located at 333 N. New River Drive East, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

22. On or about April 4, 2024, Plaintiff, CASTILLO, was a passenger in a Tesla,

crashing down onto traffic below.

it came crashing down onto traffic below.

it came crashing down onto traffic below.

CASTILLO, was a passenger.

severe and serious head and facial trauma.

30. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff, CASTILLO, suffered

crashing into the vehicle she occupied.

subcontractors, employees and/or agents.

construction of the bridge.

COUNT I: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST

crane on the project.

standards in the following ways:

the construction site while the crane was being assembled;

b. Failing to properly inspect the crane before it was assembled,

passed the proper inspections;

d. Failing to institute protective measures, safety planning and signal devices so as to

was unreasonable, dangerous and constituted a rush to completion which exposed

GEMMALYN CASTILLO, the general public, and workers to unreasonable risk

professional standards of care;

g. Taking shortcuts on materials and techniques, and attempting to complete the

project on an unreasonably accelerated schedule;

h. Failing to move and assemble the crane correctly;

assembly of the crane;

performing proper analysis and evaluation on the impending signs of failure,

collapse, and other defects;

m. Disregarding the appropriate rules, regulations, and statutes applicable in the

assembling of the crane;

n. Failing to follow its own safety policies and procedures;