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.
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.
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.
Surely the government should pay for the treatment if they were caused by one of their employees?
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.
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."
So, just another excuse to complain about Government then? thought as much.
What about complaining about drunk/high drivers and those who enable?