Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse

On July 17,1981 two of the overhead walkways at the Hyatt Regency Hotel collapsed on one another and landed on a party being held in the lobby below.  This disastrous failure would lead to the most fatal pre-9/11 structural collapse in United States’ history, with114 dead and 216 severely injured.  In the aftermath of the event, the investigation attributed the collapse to a late design change in the hanger rod connections that effectively doubled the load and poor communication between manufacturer and the designers. However, even with the original design the rods would have barley supported the expected load, violating the codes set by Kansas City.  Furthermore, the Hyatt Regency had previously shown signs of being structurally unstable.  On October 1979, the atrium roof had collapsed during construction.  Consequently, the hired engineering firm had requested to have an onsite supervisor present until completion, but owner Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation denied it due to additional costs.  Had they made the right ethical decision then, the structural weakness would have been detected far earlier and the collapse could have been prevented.

In the case of the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse, the main ethical question was whether the Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation should have hired an onsite supervisor to oversee the entire project.  The main stakeholders were the owners, the engineering firm G.C.E International, the connection fabricator Havens Steel Company, the designer Jack D. Gillum and Associates, and as always the general public.

In opting to bypass the request to have a supervisor from the engineering firm, the consequence was the collapse of the two walkways and all the resulting casualties.  The intent of the decision was to cut what the owners saw as unnecessary cost.  Although the Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation did not purposely have a malicious intent, they clearly should have reassessed their decision when considering the character perspective.  A moral character would have insisted on having a supervisor at the project site at all times after the structure had proven to be unstable.

By correlating the three perspectives, it is obvious that opting to pass over the request for a supervisor was an unethical decision.  The intent perspective and the character perspective directly opposed each other.  The intent prioritized money at the direct expense of safety, and the character perspective suggested the opposite course.

The action that owners elected to take was an extremely unethical decision. Proper use of the process for ethical decision making would have directed them to sacrifice some profit to ensure the safety of the building.  Instead, their folly led to the one of the most catastrophic collapse in United States History.

"Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse." ENGINEERING.com. Texas A&M University, 24 Oct. 2006. Web. 31 July 2013.