Cait Sith Posted April 3, 2011 Share #26 Posted April 3, 2011 Wow! Congratulations for reading the article!... Well, actually, no congratulations. Just read the article next time. It explains everything the driver was doing on that S76. One problem, the S76 doesnt run through that part of the area.... so it was most likely either a depot deadhead or it was deadheading to St. George Ferry Terminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted April 3, 2011 Share #27 Posted April 3, 2011 That's what I was pointing at Caith The article says: "Maston was driving an Oakwood Beach-bound S76 bus apparently from the Castleton Depot to the start of its run at the St. George Ferry Terminal. It wasn’t carrying any passengers, police sources at the scene said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclephil Posted April 4, 2011 Share #28 Posted April 4, 2011 If someone mentioned this please accept my apologies in advance but to the best recollection I have the TA is self insured. Meaning they have a fund set aside to pay damages in accidents where they (or their employees) are found at fault. I had accidents over the years and while I had to testify at depositions I was never sued personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartmn1210 Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share #29 Posted April 4, 2011 If someone mentioned this please accept my apologies in advance but to the best recollection I have the TA is self insured. Meaning they have a fund set aside to pay damages in accidents where they (or their employees) are found at fault. I had accidents over the years and while I had to testify at depositions I was never sued personally. I had posted this in response to someone elses comments. Dont worry the TA is self insured and probably paid out at least double than the amount Edison wants "I was there as along side the union reps observing the happenings of an accident investigation!!!!! As I posted in previous post I DON'T SPECULATE! So you can see why there is hostility and resentment on my behalf. I didn't think that for one minute that IGOR would turn this into a war of words! I just wanted to get the fact out that its stupid for con ed to take somoeone for court when theres something called insurance. Which by the way I believe the TA is self-insured and I wouldnt doubt that Edison didn't bill the TA for at least twice that amount and was already paid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
error46146 Posted April 4, 2011 Share #30 Posted April 4, 2011 Aside from the flaming, I find this actually interesting; usually people would go sue whoever has the bigger pockets (the MTA) and not some random bus driver..perhaps Con Ed is taking this personally?? Maybe one of their exec's houses lose power cause of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMTLines Posted April 4, 2011 Share #31 Posted April 4, 2011 Do bus drivers have their own liability insurance or are they covered by their employer? I would presume that Con Ed should only be going after the owner of the vehicle (in this case the MTA) just like they would do if a car hit their pole - after all the vehicle is the entity that is insured. This really does not make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted April 4, 2011 Share #32 Posted April 4, 2011 I guess by suing the B/O instead of the TA, Con Ed will get their money faster since the B/O won't have an army of lawyers to fight this. I know that when you crash into something on the highway (light poles, trees, guard rail) the DOT makes you pay for it so this isn't unusual, but woudn't insurance cover the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted April 4, 2011 Share #33 Posted April 4, 2011 Aside from the flaming, I find this actually interesting; usually people would go sue whoever has the bigger pockets (the MTA) and not some random bus driver..perhaps Con Ed is taking this personally?? Maybe one of their exec's houses lose power cause of this? I highly doubt that a Con Ed executive would be living in Staten Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted April 4, 2011 Share #34 Posted April 4, 2011 Ok ok whatever, but I think that Con Ed has a completely good reason to sue for the damages caused. Of course the bus driver didn't mean to hit it, but he did. I was not bashing the bus driver at all, I was just saying how being an MTA employee should not protect you from being sued for when you crash into something. And no, I do not work for the MTA and I have absolutely no desire to. I'm not working yet, but when I do I plan to get a job where you can make good money. And Cait Sith, just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that you should only tell me to stop. I'm trying to calmly say what I believe, but the post the OP made with the incredible amount of spelling/grammar mistakes, unnecessary and excessive capitalization, and unneeded angry emoticons set me off. I dont really mind if you reply towards anyone, I only told you to stop with your smartass remarks, which you still didnt do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upperharlemline4ever Posted April 4, 2011 Share #35 Posted April 4, 2011 Yes, the bus operator crashed into the pole and should be held accountable for that but I'm sure as others have said those poles probably were dry rotted. A number of years ago, I was in Rockland County. It was the day before ConEd took control of Orange and Rockland Utilities and everywhere we went there were O&R crews working like mad men. I asked one of the crews what was going on and to paraphrase, they said that the next day ConEd was taking over and there would no longer be any preventative maintenance. A few years ago shortly after Christmas we had a terrible ice and snow storm. A tree came down over a pole and knocked out our electric service. We had no electricity for 3 days and of course no heat. It took ConEd nearly3 months to actually replace the downed pole. They ginnied up some makeshift stuff in the mean time. So don't tell me about ConEd (emphasis on the Con). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted April 4, 2011 Share #36 Posted April 4, 2011 I guess by suing the B/O instead of the TA, Con Ed will get their money faster since the B/O won't have an army of lawyers to fight this. I know that when you crash into something on the highway (light poles, trees, guard rail) the DOT makes you pay for it so this isn't unusual, but woudn't insurance cover the cost? Wow Con Ed are a bunch of cowards, next thing you know it they will be suing mother nature for all the snow that was hit this year lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted April 5, 2011 Share #37 Posted April 5, 2011 Lets say that a non-MTA employee, such as a Wall Street executive, was for some reason driving in Staten Island and crashed into the same exact pole with his car, which caused the same amount of damages. Just out of curiosity, how many of you think that Con Ed should still be liable for his lack of judgement for this? And don't even say that this is a smartass remark, this is a perfectly good question that I'd like to know the answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Up Front Posted April 5, 2011 Share #38 Posted April 5, 2011 It all makes sense - if a bus operator gets into an accident, we can all bash the ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akkuma2k Posted April 6, 2011 Share #39 Posted April 6, 2011 totally makes no sense to sue this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.