Doyle Dennis Avery LLP has filed a wrongful death lawsuit following a tragic helicopter crash in Houston, Texas, that claimed multiple lives when the aircraft collided with an unlit communications tower. The lawsuit alleges that SBA Towers XI, LLC failed to maintain required Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) obstruction lighting, failed to monitor the tower’s lighting system, and failed to correct the dangerous condition despite having notice of the outage.

Our firm represents surviving family members pursuing wrongful death and survival claims for a preventable tragedy. If your family has lost a loved one in an aviation accident caused by corporate negligence, contact us at (713) 571-1146 for a free case evaluation. We’ve recovered millions for our clients.

The Fatal Accident: A Preventable Tragedy

In 2024, a helicopter conducting an evening flight over Houston struck a communications tower that was either completely unlit or improperly illuminated. The tower, required by federal law to be equipped with functioning obstruction lighting to warn pilots during nighttime conditions, had a failed lighting system that the defendants allegedly knew about but failed to repair.

The collision resulted in the helicopter crashing, killing the pilot and others aboard. The pilot leaves behind family members now forced to navigate life without their loved one—a loss that could have been prevented if the tower owner had fulfilled its basic safety obligations.

Federal Aviation Regulations and Tower Lighting Requirements

Under 14 CFR Part 77, the FAA requires that structures including communications towers above specific heights must be marked and lit to make them visible to aircraft. These obstruction lighting systems are mandatory safety measures designed to prevent exactly this type of fatal collision.

Tower owners have specific legal obligations: towers must be equipped with red obstruction lights that flash at regular intervals; owners must maintain monitoring systems that provide immediate notification when lights fail; immediate corrective action is required when outages are detected; and if repairs cannot be completed immediately, a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) must be issued through the FAA to warn pilots of the unlit hazard.

SBA Towers XI, LLC allegedly failed in all of these obligations, creating a deadly trap for pilots navigating Houston’s airspace.

Corporate Negligence: Knowledge and Failure to Act

Our investigation reveals the defendants were aware—or should have been aware—that the tower’s obstruction lighting had failed. Modern tower lighting systems include monitoring technology that alerts owners immediately when lights malfunction. Despite access to this monitoring data, the defendants allegedly failed to take corrective action.

This represents reckless disregard for human life. When a company knows a tower poses an aviation hazard, knows the required safety lighting has failed, and chooses not to fix the problem or warn pilots, that company must be held fully accountable when tragedy occurs.

The failure to maintain proper obstruction lighting is particularly egregious because the solution is straightforward and inexpensive. Replacing bulbs, repairing electrical systems, or issuing NOTAMs costs relatively little compared to the value of human life.

Legal Liability and Wrongful Death Claims

SBA Towers XI, LLC is the primary defendant as tower owner and operator. The company’s alleged failures include: failure to maintain functioning obstruction lighting, failure to monitor the lighting system, failure to detect or respond to outages, failure to issue NOTAMs when lighting was inoperative, and negligent maintenance creating a hazardous condition.

Wrongful Death and Survival Claims Under Texas Law

Wrongful Death Claims are brought by surviving family members—spouse, children, and parents—seeking compensation for loss of companionship and society, mental anguish and grief, loss of care and advice, loss of financial support and inheritance, and funeral expenses.

Survival Actions are brought by the estate seeking damages the deceased could have recovered: pain and suffering before death, medical expenses, and lost wages from injury until death.

Texas law does not cap damages in wrongful death cases arising from aviation accidents and corporate negligence. Additionally, gross negligence—conscious disregard for safety—may warrant exemplary (punitive) damages to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct.

The Investigation Process

Our legal team is working with aviation safety experts, tower lighting specialists, and accident reconstruction professionals. Key evidence includes FAA tower registration documents, maintenance records, monitoring system data showing when lights failed, communications between tower owner and contractors, prior lighting outage complaints, NTSB investigation findings, and expert analysis of the collision.

Physical evidence must be preserved immediately. Critical evidence can be lost, destroyed, or degraded over time, which is why families should contact an experienced aviation wrongful death attorney as soon as possible.

Why This Death Was Preventable

The safety measures required to prevent tower strikes have been established for decades. Simple steps that should have been taken include regular inspection and testing of obstruction lights, automated monitoring systems with immediate alerts, prompt replacement of failed bulbs, backup lighting systems, immediate NOTAM issuance when repairs cannot be completed promptly, and adequate staffing to respond to failures 24/7.

The cost of these safety measures is negligible compared to their life-saving value. There is no excuse for allowing a tower to remain unlit when it poses a known hazard to aircraft.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP: Proven Experience in Wrongful Death Cases

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP has extensive experience representing families in complex wrongful death cases involving corporate negligence and safety violations. Our firm has recovered millions for our clients, and we are not afraid to take on major corporations that prioritize profits over safety.

Our Track Record:

• $4.3 Million Verdict in Magnolia Cove Apartments Inadequate Security Case: We secured a landmark verdict when inadequate security at an apartment complex led to a tenant’s death during a robbery. Despite knowing about broken security gates, insufficient lighting, no functioning cameras, and a history of criminal activity, property owners failed to act.
• Law Enforcement Misconduct Cases: Attorney Mike Doyle represents the family of Rhogena Nicholas and Dennis Tuttle, killed during a Houston Police Department no-knock raid based on a false warrant affidavit. We also filed a Rule 202 petition for the family of Mark Hopkins, a 22-year-old student killed during a College Station police raid.
• Military Contractor Negligence: We filed suit against Tundra Strategies on behalf of U.S. servicemen when the contractor failed to properly screen an Afghan national with a documented history of threatening U.S. soldiers, leading to a serviceman being shot with a company-issued weapon.

These cases share a common theme: corporations that know about dangers yet fail to act. When their negligence results in death, we ensure full accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions

• How long do I have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Texas? Texas provides a two-year statute of limitations from the date of death. Consult an attorney immediately to ensure your claim is filed within the deadline, and begin evidence preservation as soon as possible.
• Who can file a wrongful death claim in Texas? The deceased’s surviving spouse, children, and parents. If none file suit within three months, the estate’s personal representative may file on their behalf.
• What is the difference between wrongful death and survival actions? Wrongful death compensates family members for their losses (companionship, mental anguish, support). Survival actions are brought by the estate for damages the deceased could have recovered (pain and suffering before death, medical expenses).
• What damages can be recovered? Economic damages (financial support, funeral expenses, lost inheritance) and non-economic damages (companionship, mental anguish, care and advice). Gross negligence may warrant punitive damages. Generally no caps apply in these cases.
• How long does a wrongful death lawsuit take? Aviation wrongful death cases typically take 18 months to several years depending on investigation complexity, defendants, discovery, and whether the case settles or goes to trial.
• What are FAA tower lighting requirements? Under 14 CFR Part 77, towers above certain heights must have red obstruction lights operational 24/7. Tower owners must monitor the system and immediately correct failures, or issue a NOTAM warning pilots.
• Who is liable when a helicopter hits an unlit tower? The tower owner and operator are primarily liable. Additional parties may include maintenance contractors and monitoring service providers, depending on their role in the lighting failure.
• Can I sue both the tower owner and helicopter operator? Yes. Multiple parties can be liable depending on their negligence. However, when a tower is unlit in violation of FAA regulations, the tower owner bears primary responsibility.
• How much does it cost to hire a wrongful death lawyer? Doyle Dennis Avery LLP works on contingency—no upfront costs and no attorney fees unless we recover compensation. We advance all litigation costs, allowing families to pursue justice without financial burden.
• Will my case go to trial or settle? Most wrongful death cases settle before trial after discovery reveals evidence strength. However, we prepare every case for trial and are fully prepared to present to a jury if defendants refuse fair compensation.

Take Action to Protect Your Rights

If you have lost a loved one in an aviation accident caused by corporate negligence, time is critical. Evidence must be preserved, investigations must begin immediately, and claims must be filed within strict deadlines.

Contact us today:

No amount of money can bring back your loved one. But holding negligent companies accountable provides financial security, validates that your loved one’s life mattered, and may prevent similar tragedies. Let us fight for your family while you focus on healing.

Our premises liability and negligent security attorneys have secured a landmark $4.3 million verdict in Harris County District Court, holding apartment complex owners accountable for inadequate security that led to the tragic death of M. Bonilla. This case (No. 2017-08414) demonstrates our firm’s commitment to justice for families affected by negligent apartment security.

Fatal Security Failure

This landmark case arose after intruders gained access to Magnolia Cove Apartments due to severely inadequate security measures, leading to M. Bonilla’s tragic death. Our client, N. Ardon, brought claims individually, as representative of M. Bonilla’s estate, and as next friend of minor E. Bonilla.

Our investigation revealed critical security failures:

• Broken security gates allowing unauthorized access
• Insufficient lighting in common areas and parking lots
• Lack of functioning security cameras
• Absence of security patrols
• History of criminal activity that went unaddressed

Through extensive discovery and expert testimony, our trial team proved that both APTMC, LLC (Magnolia Cove Apartments) and Gatesco, Inc. knew about security risks but failed to take appropriate action.

Understanding Apartment Complex Security Obligations

Texas law requires apartment owners to protect residents from foreseeable criminal acts. This includes:

1. Proper Access Control

• Working security gates
• Controlled entry systems
• Secure locks and doors
• Monitored access points

2. Adequate Lighting

• Parking areas
• Common walkways
• Building entrances
• Stairwells and corridors

3. Security Systems

• Surveillance cameras
• Alarm systems
• Emergency response protocols
• Security personnel when warranted

4. Crime Prevention

• Regular security assessments
• Criminal activity monitoring
• Resident safety communications
• Swift response to security concerns

Historic $4.3 Million Verdict Breakdown

The Harris County jury recognized the devastating impact of these security failures:

Individual Claims (N. Ardon):

• $850,000 future damages
• $450,000 past damages
• Prejudgment interest from February 2017

Minor Child (E. Bonilla):

• $1,250,000 future damages
• $750,000 past damages
• Additional prejudgment interest

Estate Claims (M. Bonilla):

• $200,000 in damages
• Associated interest and costs

Liability Distribution:

• Magnolia Cove Apartments: 35%
• Gatesco, Inc.: 65% (triggering joint and several liability)

Foreseeability of Criminal Activity

Our legal team proved the critical element of foreseeability through:

• Prior criminal incidents at the complex
• Police reports from surrounding area
• Security expert testimony
• Industry standard analysis
• Crime statistics for the location

This evidence demonstrated that property owners knew or should have known about security risks but failed to act.

Legal Standards for Apartment Security

Texas courts recognize specific requirements for apartment security:

1. Duty of Care

• Reasonable security measures
• Regular maintenance of security features
• Response to known risks
• Protection of residents

2. Industry Standards

• Access control systems
• Professional security assessments
• Crime prevention through environmental design
• Emergency response protocols

3. Documentation Requirements

• Security incident reports
• Maintenance records
• Resident complaints
• Security system testing

4. Staff Training

• Security awareness
• Emergency procedures
• Resident communication
• Incident reporting

Impact on Texas Apartment Security Law

This verdict establishes important precedents:

1. Property Owner Accountability

• Direct liability for security failures
• Management company responsibility
• Joint liability implications
• Duty to maintain security systems

2. Security Measure Requirements

• Modern security technology standards
• Staffing obligations
• Maintenance expectations
• Response time requirements

3. Damage Calculations

• Long-term impact consideration
• Family member compensation
• Estate recovery rights
• Interest calculations

Protecting Your Rights After a Security Incident

If you’ve been affected by apartment complex security failures:

1. Immediate Actions

• Ensure personal safety
• Contact law enforcement
• Document all evidence
• Seek medical attention if needed

2. Documentation

• Photograph security failures
• Record incident details
• Gather witness information
• Keep all communications

3. Legal Considerations

• Preserve evidence
• Report to management
• Contact experienced attorneys
• Understand time limitations

4. Rights Protection

• Don’t sign management documents
• Maintain incident records
• Consider temporary relocation
• Document all expenses

How Doyle Dennis Avery LLP Can Help

Our firm specializes in:

• Negligent security cases
• Apartment complex liability
• Wrongful death claims
• Premises liability
• Complex civil litigation

Our approach includes:

1. Thorough Investigation

• Crime scene analysis
• Security system evaluation
• Historical incident review
• Expert consultation

2. Evidence Gathering

• Security records
• Maintenance documents
• Witness statements
• Expert testimony

3. Legal Strategy

• Multi-defendant litigation
• Insurance coverage analysis
• Damage modeling
• Trial preparation

Contact Us Today

Free Consultation Available

Don’t wait – Texas law limits the time to file claims. Contact our experienced trial attorneys today to protect your rights and seek justice.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP recently filed a petition to open an investigation into the circumstances that caused the death of Mark Hopkins, a 22-year-old student in College Station, Texas.

On February 8, 2022, officers with the College Station police department executed a search warrant at an off-campus residence occupied by Mark, his girlfriend, and another student. The suit alleges that the warrant was based on an affidavit that falsely claimed there were Venmo transactions between Hopkins and Abraham Escobar, the target of the search warrant who police suspected of being a drug dealer. Escobar was neither an occupant of the home that was the subject of the search warrant, nor was he present at the time of its execution.

The lawsuit alleges that at or around 6:00 a.m., College Station PD used “flash bang” devices to enter the premises. Hopkins and his girlfriend awoke during the commotion and believed burglars had broken into their home. According to Mark’s girlfriend, a witness to the tragic events that morning, they did not hear any knocking or attempt by the raid members to identify themselves as police officers. Fearing for their safety, Mark grabbed his personal shotgun as he instructed his girlfriend to hide in the closet and call 911. After College Station PD forced entry into the couple’s bedroom, Mark’s girlfriend witnessed him fall to the ground after being repeatedly shot at by police officers, according to the lawsuit.

After many months of ignored requests for information by the City of College Station, the Hopkins family retained Aaron W. Perry and Doyle Dennis Avery LLP to uncover the truth of the matter. On October 9, 2023, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP filed a “Rule 202” petition on behalf of the Hopkins family in Brazos County, Texas. The family seeks to gain access to incident reports, investigative documents, and unabridged body camera footage to clarify the circumstances that led to Mark’s untimely end. Additionally, they hope that the investigation will facilitate the transparency necessary to clear Mark Hopkin’s name.

Ignoring safety protocols and basic civil rights can lead to grave consequences. Doyle Dennis Avery LLP strives to hold the individuals involved, as well as the systems that enable those individuals, accountable for their conduct. If you or a family member has been harmed by reckless conduct by police officer or other public official, contact us for a free evaluation of your potential claims.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP recently filed suit against three defendants Rise Communities LLC, GR-M1, LTD., and Meridiana Community Association, INC., in Harris County, Texas.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP’s client seeks to hold Rise Communities accountable for its actions related to failing to maintain its structure. In addition, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP’s client seeks to hold Meridiana Community Association liable for its failure to warn, maintain, and protect against hazards and objects that could cause harm to users of their underpass. Lastly, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP’s client seeks to hold GR-M1, LTD., a parent company for Rise Communities, liable for the direct negligence of its subpart. 

On or about June 3^rd, 2022, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP’s client was riding to work on his electric scooter. While taking his normal route into work, the client utilized the Defendant’s underpass, made specifically for children to bypass above traffic, but was violently thrown from his scooter when he came upon a hidden divot in the underpass. The client suffered a broken jaw and received several stiches in his chin.

Doyle Dennis Avery LPP has significant experience in representing individuals who have been injured due to the negligence of large corporations. For example, in Lunford v. VLive Houston a premises liability dispute, the attorneys at Doyle Dennis Avery LLP was awarded a $52.6 million judgment, including $47+ million in actual damages and $5 million in exemplary damages. If you or someone close to you has suffered an injury due to a company’s negligence, contact the lawyers at Doyle Dennis Avery LLP for an evaluation of your potential claims.  

Houston Police Department officers shot and killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas in a botched drug raid in 2019. Following their deaths, the Tuttle and Nicholas families’ (the “Families”) filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, alleging that the officers used excessive force in executing the search warrant and that the search and seizure were unlawful. The Families asserted both direct claims and claims premised on failure to intervene against the individual officers. Importantly, the Families also asserted claims against Lieutenants Todd and Gonzales, who had a role in supervising the other officers, for excessive force and unlawful search-and-seizure based on direct liability and failure to supervise. The Families argued that they sufficiently stated a claim for supervisor liability against Todd. They then argued that the district court correctly concluded that Todd was not entitled to qualified immunity because the allegations against Todd for supervisor liability overcame qualified immunity.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. First, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the individual officers’ motions to dismiss the Families’ claims for excessive-force and thus allowed those claims against the individual officers to proceed. The Fifth Circuit declined to address the motions to dismiss the search-and-seizure claims asserted against Sepolio, Salazar, Gallegos, Wood, Pardo, Medina, Reyna, Lovings, and Ashraft.
In addition, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly allowed the Families’ failure-to-supervise claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 to proceed because the Families alleged multiple specific instances in which the officer fraudulently obtained a search warrant and in which violence occurred, and the officer’s supervisor knew about these infractions, but did nothing to correct them. Regarding Todd, the Fifth Circuit determined that the district court “lacked jurisdiction to enter any judgment respecting Lieutenant Todd.” Thus, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order. Regarding Gonzales, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Families’ claims against Gonzales for excessive force and search-and-seizure claims based on direct liability. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the facts alleged support the inference that Gonzales failed to supervise Goines, and that a causal link exists between his failure to supervise and the actions that ultimately occurred. Thus, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court was correct in allowing the claims against Gonzales to proceed.
Finally, because federal qualified immunity does not apply to state-law claims, the Fifth Circuit declined to address whether the Families’ state-law wrongful death and survival claims against all defendants should be dismissed.
Read the full opinion here (Tuttle v. Sepolio, No. 22-20279, c/w No. 23-20013, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12834 (5th Cir. 2023):

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-20013/23-20013-2023-05-24.html