Laissez-faire

******************************
Minnesota on notice for 83 bridge collapse lawsuits

I suppose victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse have some sort of the right of redress ……….. but far too many people seem to consider the state an entity just like a business with it’s own huge pile of $$$ all ready to grab. In reality, these 83 lawsuits are against the MN taxpayer. Today’s MN Taxpayers are not at fault. Innocent people are being sued. The “guilty” taxpayers of a generation ago are getting off scot-free.

It sure seems like a very nice little arrangement that government bureaucrats having working for them ……… being protected from personal lawsuits. So if a mistake is made, the taxpayer is taken to the cleaners instead of them.

I don’t have all the answers but it would be nice if people at least understood that they’re suing the taxpayer (an innocent party). The fact of the matter is that the MN taxpayer has already been taken to the cleaners at both the state and federal level on infrastructure funding ………. there was and still is plenty of $$$$$$ to fix bridges and roads …….. IF the $$$$ isn’t diverted to fund earmarks and pork.

But it continues to be diverted so I guess the MN taxpayer has to be taken to the cleaners for a 3rd time.

Have a nice day.

– Smitty, 1-27-08

****************************

Source: http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-morning/ci_8039045

Minnesota on notice for 83 bridge collapse lawsuits
Victims, survivors, companies meet first deadline, offer details

BY MARTIGA LOHN
Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 01/21/2008 11:39:01 PM CST

Scores of victims of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse - from surviving spouses to the parents of children riding on a yellow school bus - have filed preliminary paperwork to sue the state.

The documents, obtained through a public records request, provide a glimpse into a brewing legal battle over the Aug. 1 Minneapolis disaster, which killed 13 and injured 145. They also offer the most detailed look yet into the financial burdens on the victims and their families.

The first legal deadline - requiring those injured to notify the state within 180 days - is Sunday. Lawyers said the notices are a formality that may not be necessary in order to sue, but the number indicates that many victims are contemplating their options in court.

“This is the predecessor to the lawsuits,” said Chris Messerly, an attorney for a pro bono coalition of law firms representing more than 60 bridge victims.

Private companies that worked on the bridge are also likely legal targets because they have deeper pockets, but there’s no requirement to notify them.

Bridge victims don’t stand to get much from the state because of a law limiting the government’s total liability to $1 million or $300,000 per person. But lawmakers are considering a compensation fund that would offer more to those who give up the right to sue the state. A joint House-Senate panel takes up the proposal today.

The state set up a separate $1 million emergency relief fund in November, but so far only 11 bridge victims have claimed a total of $57,862 in lost wages, according to the Minnesota Department of Administration.

Once that fund is drained, bridge victims won’t have any legal claims left against the state, attorney James Schwebel said. Many haven’t asked for the aid because they fear it might close off other legal avenues, said Rep. Ryan Winkler, who’s pushing legislation for a victims’ compensation fund.

As of Friday, Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office had received notice of potential legal claims from 73 injured bridge victims and their family members. Families of six of those killed also had outlined plans to sue the state. So had three insurance companies and the owner of the school bus.

Many notices used standard legal terminology, but a few provide more details.

One letter outlines the ordeal of Tina Hickman, who was eight months pregnant and on her way to a book club meeting when the bridge fell. She was found unconscious, and doctors delivered a boy by Caesarean section. The infant was apparently not hurt in the collapse, but Hickman was put into a medically induced coma for a month. Her lawyer, James R. Fink, estimated her medical expenses at more than $250,000.

Fink also outlined a plan to seek $250,000 for Hickman’s “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment and emotional distress” in a claim totaling $535,085, plus another $30,000 claim from her husband.

Another notice discusses the injuries of Julie Graves, one of the adults on the school bus, including “several fractures to her spine, the effects of which will be permanent, severe cuts that required over 150 stitches to close with consequent scarring and medical bills exceeding $94,500.”

The wife of Patrick Holmes, who was killed in the collapse, notified the state she plans to seek “well over $1 million” in a wrongful death claim.

Notices also came from the family of Sadiya Sahal, a nursing student who was pregnant when she died with her 22-month-old daughter, Hana Sahal; and the families of Julia Blackhawk, Paul Eickstadt and Artemio Trinidad-Mena.

Families of those killed in the bridge collapse have up to a year to notify the state of potential legal action.

The Hartford, an insurance company that provided workers compensation for injured bridge victim Garrett Ebling’s employer, Great Clips, filed paperwork to recoup the $329,549 it has already paid. American Family Insurance Co. and State Farm Insurance also said they intend to sue the state and the city of Minneapolis for their losses on insurance policies.

First Student Inc., the owner of the school bus, is asking for $30,336 to cover its loss, including a $399 bill for towing.

At least 22 of the notices were on behalf of children, many of them passengers on the bus. Many are still traumatized, according to attorney Wil Fluegel, who represents 10 passengers.

“Many of the children, their parents tell me, still insist on sleeping with mom or dad at night,” Fluegel said Monday. “One of the little girls routinely still wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, ‘I don’t want to die.’ ”

Lawyers for the victims are frustrated by their lack of access to the investigation, which is holding up lawsuits. Final findings from the National Transportation Safety Board are expected this fall. Most claims outlined in the notices accuse the state of negligence in its maintenance of the bridge. Others point to the potential liability of URS Corp., a private consultant that inspected the bridge, and Progressive Contractors Inc., the private contractor that was resurfacing the span when it fell.

Associated Press writer Brian Bakst contributed to this report.

***************************
Source: http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=59627780

Just Say ‘No’ to N.O.
Building in disaster areas is simply a horrible idea

By Beaumont Vance

What is one to do with someone who builds his house on the train tracks? Let’s assume that this individual knows that trains roll down these tracks once every 11 years. When one inevitably does and the owner of the home leaps to safety shortly before it is shattered to bits, how should one react? Should one help him to rebuild a new house in the path of yet another train? Or should he be labeled a fool and left to rebuild without assistance?

The citizens of New Orleans have been engaging in building practices similar to this since 1718 when the city was first founded. A flood destroyed the village in 1719. Not to be deterred, the citizens rebuilt, only to be wiped off the face of the map by a hurricane again in 1722. A year later, whatever progress they had made in recovering was again obliterated by yet another hurricane.

In the 289 years since New Orleans was founded, it has been flooded 27 times. On average, the residents rebuild every 11 years.

The current projections put the completion of repairs at 2011. If a flood hits every 11 years, and repairs take six years, it doesn’t leave much time to enjoy living in the city before it is destroyed again.

It must be the single most optimistic city on the planet.

New Orleans lies mostly below sea level, near the Mississippi river, south of Lake Pontchartrain and just off the Gulf Coast. Being below sea level is fine, provided that the sea is nowhere nearby to come paying visits from time to time like some unwanted relative.

Unfortunately, New Orleans is surrounded by huge bodies of water seeking a low point to congregate … points where the residents also choose to live. Even after 27 disastrous floods, the most recent deluge was treated as a shock.

Few, if any, news reporters or politicians dared mention this fact. Pointing out such things would have seemed mean-spirited and drawn the ire of the populous. Writing this article now, I am well aware that many readers may find this article to be in poor taste or coldhearted. But similar problems exist in many other areas of the world.

Off of the coast of the Carolinas on the East Coast of the United States, there are a bunch of very large sandbars known as the Outer Banks. Many people choose to build expensive homes on these shifting sands. When the ground erodes from under them, or when a hurricane blows them down, the residents, taken completely by surprise, immediately look for government assistance.

Lest anyone think that I have simply become an unsympathetic curmudgeon, I offer that the editors of The Economist agree. On page 14 of the July 28th issue, they published an article with the headline “Britain Under Water: Building on Sand.” The authors note, “No one in his right mind would build London today.”

Like New Orleans, London is surrounded by bodies of water that have a tendency to inundate certain parts of the metropolis. This does not deter Londoners from building on the low spots. The Economist places the blame squarely on the way by which insurance is written and subsidized.

It seems that citizens choosing to build on the flood plains are not charged any excess premium. There is no financial risk to building in a location that is likely to be found covered in several meters of water, because insurance will cover the loss. The premium is the same as nonflood zones due to government subsidies.

This governmental intervention is the root cause of the problem. People can be very optimistic about catastrophes. Just ask someone living on top of a fault in California–they find it absurd to worry that a large quake might shake their abode to the ground even though the leading experts agree that this is inevitable.

By continuing to offer government and insurance schemes that promise to cover future losses, this natural optimism is bolstered. Someone living in a catastrophe-prone location can reason that, even if disaster should strike, Uncle Sam or the insurance companies will remedy any loss.

The answer to the opening question, if we are to take our cue from popular opinion and government action, is that we should jump right in and help our friend build a new house on the train tracks. One can also surmise that we should show astonishment and heartfelt sympathy every time a locomotive smashes through it, leaving him homeless.

But I wonder if it is not time for a bit of common sense to enter into the dialogue. Choosing to build in the path of certain and inevitable destruction is a horrendous idea. New Orleans will be destroyed again. Why are so few willing to state the obvious? Because it sounds mean-spirited and would be political suicide (boy, am I ever glad I will never run for office!).

Perhaps refusing to help those in need would be callous. But we can at least give them encouragement to stay out of harm’s way by refusing to reward the behavior.

BEAUMONT VANCE manages risk for Sun Microsystems Inc. This column was a complimentary excerpt from one of his latest “Risk Management Reports” newsletters, which he edits and publishes. For more information on how to subscribe to the full version of the newsletter, please visit www.riskreports.com/

***************************

– Smitty, 1-13-08

Starting the New Year off on a lighter note, here’s I am with 2 of my 3 grandkids (taken 12-26-07):

– Smitty, 1-1-08