A Henderson County jury returned a $101 million combined verdict arising from a January 2021 retaining wall collapse at a Hendersonville plumbing supply facility, an award described by counsel as one of the largest personal injury verdicts recorded in North Carolina. The verdict allocated $45 million to each of two injured workers and $11 million for loss of consortium to the spouse of one worker. Although the case proceeded through trial in Henderson County Superior Court, the litigation concluded shortly after the verdict through a confidential post-verdict settlement. The underlying incident involved a concrete and cinderblock retaining wall that collapsed during site work, killing one worker and injuring others.
The Wall Collapse and the Resulting Injuries
The collapse occurred on Jan. 13, 2021 at the Hajoca Corporation plumbing supply facility on Spartanburg Highway. According to court filings describing the structure, the retaining wall was approximately 9 feet, 8 inches tall and about 150 feet long, serving as a shared boundary between Hajoca’s property and adjacent property owned by Tina Ward Foster. Emergency responders were dispatched after reports that multiple construction crew members were trapped under concrete and soil. Marcelino Godofredo Rendon Hernandez, 37, was killed, and four other workers were injured when the wall gave way while a masonry crew was working in the parking lot area.
The injured plaintiffs identified in court records and related reporting included Adan Rendon Hernandez, 34, and Magno Alberto Valdez Sanchez, 39, who sustained significant injuries when the wall fell. The injured men were not Hajoca employees; they worked for Robert Crawford Masonry and were on-site performing work connected to the retaining wall and surrounding pavement. The estate of the deceased worker also pursued claims but resolved the wrongful death case before trial. The injured workers and the family obtained workers’ compensation benefits, then sought recovery through tort claims against parties alleged to have controlled the premises, the project, or safety-related decisions.
Claims, Defendants, and Alleged Project Management Failures
The civil litigation proceeded through multiple lawsuits filed in 2022 against Hajoca Corp., store manager Andrew Weymouth, W.D. Building Rentals, and Pinnacle Grading Company Inc., later consolidated for trial. Pinnacle was dismissed before trial, and W.D. Building Rentals reached a confidential settlement during the trial proceedings, narrowing the case as it approached verdict. The remaining trial focused on allegations that key defendants exercised control over the retaining wall project while failing to implement basic engineering, permitting, and construction-sequencing safeguards that plaintiffs contended were necessary for a load-bearing structure adjacent to an active work area.
According to the pleadings, the wall had been damaged in a storm in fall 2020, prompting discussions about the scope and cost of repair. The filings alleged that Foster insisted an engineer or structural design analysis should precede any repair work and believed safe repair would exceed $200,000. The pleadings contrasted that position with allegations that other parties viewed engineering as unnecessary and aimed to reduce costs. After Foster transferred her interest in the property to W.D. Building Rentals at no cost, the suit alleged Hajoca acted as general contractor for the repair while Weymouth served as project manager and supervisor. The plaintiffs were represented in part by The McCabe Law Firm, according to court filings.
Trial Evidence, and the $101 Million Jury Verdict
Trial proceedings ran from April 13 to May 20 in Henderson County Superior Court for the remaining plaintiffs. The claims centered on negligence and premises-related duties, including whether defendants failed to engineer and permit the work, whether the repair was braced and sequenced appropriately, and whether backfill was placed before the wall had adequate strength. Court filings alleged that after the masonry contractor rebuilt a damaged section and concrete was poured to core the blocks, defendants ordered substantial backfill—described as 210 tons of dirt—to be placed behind the wall only days later. Plaintiffs asserted the concrete required a longer curing period before it could safely sustain that load, and that the wall was not properly tested or braced for the pressures exerted by the backfill.
In a separate track relevant to safety standards, the North Carolina Department of Labor investigated for approximately six months and issued citations to Robert Crawford Masonry, Hajoca, and Pinnacle, including willful serious and serious violations, with reported fines in the tens of thousands of dollars. The jury ultimately returned $101 million in compensatory damages for three plaintiffs: $45 million for each of two injured workers and $11 million for loss of consortium for one spouse, a figure characterized by counsel as unprecedented for a personal injury claim in the state.
Post-Verdict Settlement and Practical Implications for Construction-Related Tort Claims
Following the verdict, the parties reached a confidential settlement for an undisclosed amount, resolving the remaining disputes without awaiting an appellate outcome. Hajoca issued a statement after the case concluded, saying it disagreed with the verdict but respected it, and that it chose to settle rather than undergo extended appellate litigation; the company also noted the settlement terms were confidential. The resolution followed a procedural arc common in high-exposure injury cases, where consolidation, midstream settlements, and post-verdict negotiations can significantly reshape risk for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The case also illustrates how workplace injuries can generate parallel remedies, with workers’ compensation providing baseline medical and wage-related benefits while tort claims test whether non-employer entities exercised sufficient control over a worksite or project to bear civil liability. Within that framework, allegations about permitting, engineering review, and sequencing of backfill and cure times can become central factual questions for jurors evaluating foreseeability and breach, including standard of care issues in construction claims. More narrowly, the dispute over how OSHA-related evidence should be handled in light of post-Chevron administrative law arguments signals an area of continued litigation attention, particularly in construction cases where regulatory standards often intersect with negligence theories.
