Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.

Topic Review

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 18:57
Originally posted by marymary100
The fact that is important is that it was someone under the influence - much like your son in his accident.

To be fair, Tim was probably high on drugs at the time and didn't realise he was too drunk to drive.

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 16:30
So, just another excuse to complain about Government then? thought as much.

What about complaining about drunk/high drivers and those who enable?

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 15:55
It being a government worker brings up the side issue, that the taxpayers ultimately will pay the bill. There has been some discussion in recent times that those who run private companies counterbalance unions to keep expenses down, but government officials who are spending treasury money often are more generous toward the unions.

One recent example: in Chicago, city truck drivers will drive city workers to a work site in the morning. Then, the driver waits all day, until the end of the work day, to drive them back. He may spend the time napping, reading the newspaper, or watching movies on a DVD player. He may only drive for half an hour each way, but he gets paid for eight hours of work--because the waiting time is paid time, according to union rules.

Some people have suggested that 7 hours a day is a lot of idle time to pay for. Instead of letting the union set the rules for work, perhaps the city should set some rules, and then the union could either say, "Yes, we'll take the job" or "No, you'll have to get others to work under those rules."

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 15:41
Is it relevant that it was a "government" worker? The fact that is important is that it was someone under the influence - much like your son in his accident. People who drive while drunk or high should have their liberty removed imo whether or not they hit a person or a wall.

Well done to the nanny but to be honest those of us who work with children should put them first.

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 15:10
Originally posted by John_Little
Surely the government should pay for the treatment if they were caused by one of their employees?
There is a lawsuit pending, and the city treasury (= the taxpayers) will ultimately get stuck with the bill (unless there is insurance coverage which would take the damage). Since the lawyers get a percentage of the settlement, it often happens that there is still some out-of-pocket expense left. For example, if the hospital bills come to one million dolllars, and the lawyers sue to get one million dollars compensation, the lawyers might get $200,000 for their work in getting the money, which would leave $800,000 toward payment of the hospital bill. When they can, the lawyers aim at a higher figure, which also increases the money they get for their own percentage, but it may leave enough to pay the bills entirely.

Another source mentions the city tried to fire the worker previously, but the Union has been defending him to help him hold on to his job. If he had stopped working when his boss wanted him fired, he would not have been on duty driving the city truck while drunk.

I think it would be more just if the driver had to pay--but that is unlikely to happen.

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 14:46
Surely the government should pay for the treatment if they were caused by one of their employees?

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 14:30
In the US, many nannies are not supplied with health insurance by their employers. I am thinking that, in this case, the parents will pay the hospital bills out of gratitude. In the US, nannies are more often hired by wealthier people, while people who are less wealthy drop their children off at day-care facilities which are less expensive because the children are watched in groups (so fewer supervising adults are required).

Federal law requires that hospital emergency rooms are not allowed to turn people away because of finances.

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 14:21
She should be in line for a bit of compensation. But I thought you were going to say the medics asked for her insurance and she didn't have any so they took the government man to hospital instead.

[*] posted on 24-5-2011 at 12:49
One account of the event is here.

The little girl, Tyler, was in a stroller. As the drunk government worker drove the car into the crowd on the sidewalk, nanny Jennifer Anton shoved the stroller out of the way, and the truck hit the nanny, harming her pelvis, hips, and legs.

The government man was on duty, driving a truck for the city, and his blood-alcohol level was .18% (more than twice the level of intoxication for which one can be arrested). A bottle of liquor was on the seat of the truck next to him.

The nanny risked her own life and took the impact, but made sure the little girl was safe. As the medical people were preparing to take the nanny to the hospital, she urged them to use her cell phone to call the mother to let her know the situation.