Posted on 10/13/2007 10:45:00 AM PDT by Abathar
MINNEAPOLIS - As the estimated cost of recovering from an interstate bridge collapse surges past $400 million, survivors of the deadly disaster just wish they could get a few thousand dollars here and there to make ends meet.
About 30 of the more than 100 people injured in the Aug. 1 collapse, which killed 13 people, meet weekly to talk about the troubles it's caused them. This past week, one man spoke of his struggles with a $41,000 medical bill. Others mentioned missed paychecks.
That they've all had such problems getting aid irritated fellow survivor Kimberly J. Brown enough that she fired off an e-mail to Minnesota's state and U.S. senators.
"I want these innocent people to have all of their medical, all of their insurance, all of their mortgages, all of their lost wages, all of their mental health counseling taken care of by the entities that were in charge, or partially in charge, of that bridge," the 36-year-old technical writer fumed in the message. "And not just today, but months and years from now."
Several state lawmakers have said they'd consider putting taxpayer money in a fund for collapse victims. But the question has been complicated by the possibility that victims will sue the state, which inspected and maintained the bridge.
The state caps its liability from any one event at $1 million, which would be divided among all the victims.
"It would just be pitifully inadequate," said Phil Sieff, one of a group of attorneys working for free to represent bridge collapse victims.
"The nonprofits are doing what they can, but it's not adequate. The government and the people responsible for the bridge need to step forward," he said.
The Interstate 35W bridge collapse cut off one of the main roads out of downtown Minneapolis, snarling traffic and putting pressure on the state to replace it quickly.
The winning bid for the new 10-lane bridge design, announced Monday, came in at $234 million, some $57 million more than the cheapest bid. And the state is promising $27 million in bonuses if the contractor finishes early, which would put the overall cost of responding to the disaster and rebuilding at more than $400 million.
That particularly annoyed Brown.
"It's time to slow down and back up. Your new bridge is going up too fast. You still have a huge mess from the old one. Fix this," she wrote.
People have donated about $940,000 to the "Minnesota Helps — Bridge Disaster Fund." But only $214,000 of that has been distributed to other charities who have been helping bridge collapse victims, said Chris Langer, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis Foundation, one of the charities coordinating the fund. None of the money is going directly to individual victims, although victims can submit the bills they accrue, she said.
Langer said more money will be distributed more rapidly as victims fill out applications for help. And she said none of the money will cover administrative costs.
"Our intention is to distribute over time 100 percent of the money that has been collected," she said.
State Sen. Ron Latz is co-chairman of a legislative panel that will consider whether to raise the $1 million cap. He said he expects hearings on the issue within a month or two.
Latz said he has not decided whether to push to raise the cap in this case, but he pointed out that most victims' financial losses should be covered by insurance.
"It's a terrible tragedy and it's really unfortunate that people have financial stress in response to it. But that doesn't mean automatically that the state has an obligation to write out a check," he said.
Lindsay Petterson, 24, was on her way home to Minneapolis from a day of working in a suburban group home when the bridge collapsed. Her car fell into the Mississippi River and filled with water immediately. Her windows were closed, and she's still not exactly sure how she found her way out. She broke a vertebrae. The car, which she still owed $4,000 on, was a total loss. She hasn't been back to work in the 10 weeks since the collapse.
Petterson said she's fine, financially. Co-workers chipped in enough vacation time to keep her paychecks going. A fundraiser by her friends and family in her hometown of Lake Lillian raised $12,000, which she has saved for when she replaces her car.
Insurance also covered many of her losses, but she said she's worried for others in her survivor's group.
"We're just really anxious about what the future holds, and where people will end up," she said. "I don't feel like the government has done much of anything to step forward and say that you'll be taken care of, regardless of who's at fault. We didn't ask for it, but it happened, and our lives have been turned upside down and we have to sit here and pick up the pieces on our own."
Sh*t happens sometimes, be lucky your not one of ones who didn't make it.
They think they won the lottery???
Minnesota is a pretty Liberal state. You telling me they don't have layers upon layers of bureaucratic fixes available for these people?
Why do those people continue to vote for people who promise to see to their every need but then don't show up at the show down?
Minnesotans aren't that stupid are they?
Yes they are. The fact of the matter is most Minnesotan's are still voting for the 1950s Democrat Party of their fathers. They simply have a sports team mentality about politics. As one person told me after Clinton won in 1992. "Well my guy finally won." She did not know a single thing about what Clinton stood for, she just had always been told that here family was "Irish Democrat" as so that they way she went and voted. It an example of an energetic-stupid personalities in action. Multiply that by a couple of million and you have the Minnesota Democrat Party. NO idea what they are voting for but que up every election and mindlessly pull the level to elect the same people who are busy dreaming up new ways every day on how to rape their paychecks to pay for programs the payees will NEVER be allowed to access.
One mil sounds like a lot of money (if they sue which they surely will), but I suppose by the time the lawyers take their cut, there woulsn'r be much left.
I can see the conundrum this presents the state. Some would need more than others.
Personally, if I got out of it with my life and didn't foresee lasting health problems as a result of it, had enough to make ends meet, I'd be very thankful and just try to get on with my life.
Others who depended on that bridge need to be considered too in that it gets rebuilt as rapidly (and safely) as possible. I can't imagine how difficult it might be for some to get to work. They are innocent victims, too.
“Minnesotans aren’t that stupid are they?”
Smart in book-learning...
not so smart in the real world sometimes.
My brother got his Masters at the St. Paul campus of the U. Minnesota
after getting his bachelors at a “State U.” in our Bible Belt home state.
He thought he was a liberal/Democrat...until he moved to Minnesota!
He realized he was really a center-right Republican!
But Minnesota does seem to be taking A BIT of a right-ward tack
with electing Republicans for governor and one Senate slot (Coleman).
I personally don't think they should get anything, but if their friends and family want to hold fundraisers, etc, like the last woman mentioned in the story, I think that's GRAND.
From the perspective of the victims it's a multiplicity of events.
That's enough right there to give the judges something to work with as they clean the state's pockets.
“I don’t feel like the government has done much of anything to step forward and say that you’ll be taken care of, regardless of who’s at fault.”
Kinda says it all in my opinion.
Still, I’m a sucker for any “Fundraiser” out by the side of the parking lot, or church, or road with a grill smokin’ behind the sign.
Oh, the public servants that spent the bridge maintenance money on stadiums and light rail instead of the bridge maintenance? THOSE PEOPLE?
In the social welfare politically correct nanny state, the victim card is a trump card whether you happened to be on a bridge that collapsed or be an African American that sighted a noose.
Ha! You and me both, Pete! Fundraiser food is usually pretty darn good eatin’!
The car, which she still owed $4,000 on, was a total loss.
Lenders require full coverage. She has insurance, right?
You think they didn’t? Just watch.
Isn’t what a lawsuit is for? To pay for medical expenses, etc?
Isn’t this what auto insurance is for — medical expenses, etc?
I'd say you're just another deadbeat trying to escape paying your bills, right?
“What ever happened to ‘Wow, thank God I an alive, that was close!’”
They should be down on their knees thanking their Creator.
Yeah, those 13 that died should have practiced more to get their victim status role right. The woman makes some pretty far out claims, but that is what a trial is for, and a jury to decide. and then for the judge to make sure that the jury didn't let their emotions guide their award (anyone familiar with the word remittitur?)
I am amazed that otherwise rational people believe that individuals or governments should not be held responsible for their negligent acts. "So the bridge fell down and your husband died, tough sh!t" seems to be the prevalent opinion here. If they should have inspected, and should have discovered, a defect that led to the collapse, shouldnt they be held responsible? If not, why should anyone ever make an effort to not harm someone? think about it.
As for damages, a person is entitled to damages to place him in back where he was before the accident. Does anyone really think that $1 Million could possibly compensate even partially those hurt or killed?
The only way justice could be served in this situation, under that rediculous damages cap, is for every one of those killed or injured to be one of those who whined enough about the fictional "lawsuit lottery" to get that statute passed.
Remember, if you will, that the government has no resources of its own, only the power to confiscate the property of its most productive citizens. Those citizens have limited that power, in this case, to $1 Million. To argue against that “cap” is to argue that the innocent survivors of this accident should be “made whole” at the expense of other innocent survivors who had no part in the circumstances that led to those deaths.
You’ll not likely find lots of supporters here for your judgment that the courts should create a new set of economic victims to replace the ones that fate selected. But, lots of folks over at DU will be with you on this, if for no other reason than to make some lawyers a few bucks, so you won’t be alone.
jdub is a lawyer. Just protecting his own. I agree with you.
I suspected as much.
I know many competent and ethical attorneys, but I’ve never met a tort lawyer than had any understanding of, or any concern about, the economic distortions created by jackpot justice. Most of them are just societal parasites that have deluded themselves into thinking that they have a monopoly on social consciousness. Natural leftists, as it were.
I’m sure a lot of folks at DU would agree with you that instead of individuals bearing responsibilty for their actions, that responsibility should be borne by the state.
When it is a state being held liable, you are correct that the costs are borne by its citizens. the citizens created the state, so it is their responsibility. I don’t like the notion “were the government, we can do whatever we want and not worry about the harms that result”.
actually, most responsible tort lawyers have to hire staff whose sole job it is to tell those who believe your tales of “jackpot justice” that, no, it really doesn’t exist, and no, you really don’t have a case just because you got hurt. thats the real world, but since it conflicts with something that you hold onto so dear (your hate for some attorneys) it won’t matter bringing facts to a feelings fight.
His two responses below 25 & 26 prove the point.
Oh, I agree that is what most responsible tort lawyers do. Unfortunately, most tort lawyers aren’t responsible. As an example, the tort lawyers who wish to overlook the legal limit on damages available in the bridge collapse case. They could care less what the law says or that purely innocent taxpayers will be paying the bill if they win. This is not “responsible” behavior.
I did re-read, and it indeed does say that. That is not nearly enough in a catastrophe of this magnitude for so many victims. The law doesn't exactly seem fair, surprised it got passed in MN, but if that is the law, so be it. One way or another, the government will pay some because it could come down to survivors going on social security disability and/or welfare which would not be a picnic as far as a decent standard of living is concerned.
I know it is a liberal state, but that doesn't make any difference to me as to who may deserve compensation.
No, even if it is a liberal state, I wouldn't like to see the state taken to the cleaners, and I don't like lawsuits. It isn't clear just whether it will come to that or not; surely it will. What is clear is that at this point in time, there isn't nearly enough to compensate that many victims. If fundraisers and charity can raise enough, that would be wonderful. I guess we will have to see what happens.
Those who think the victims don't deserve anything might not think that way if it happened to them, and it was their family facing extreme hardship, through no fault of their own.
This is what happens after the Federal Government eagerly comes to the rescue regarding only certain situations. I guess if I were in Minnesota I might think someone would come to my rescue too. If they can do it for 9/11, Katrina and others why can’t they do it for Minnesota. It was a bad precedent that could not possibly be followed through but it does add to the dog eat dog attitude and line-up for government help that prevails today.
Seeing as how contractors, engineers and lawyers stand to make hundreds of millions off of a collapse they weren't in what's the harm in some assistance to people that were actually in it?
I suspect that you cannot point to a single fact to back up that irresponsible allegation. Typically the more ignorant of the facts, the more outrageous the claim.
As an example, the tort lawyers who wish to overlook the legal limit on damages available in the bridge collapse case. They could care less what the law says or that purely innocent taxpayers will be paying the bill if they win.
A lawyer's responsibility is to his client. I find it laughable that you believe a "responsible lawyer", with a client facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, should advise them to just take whatever few sheckels the state tosses at his feet. Instead he should pursue any option that may more fully compensate his client.
You sound like one of those that believes that any law is valid, because it is the law. I think this may be a case where such caps are declared unconstitutional as a violation of due process.
A law that limits liability to $1M in any single incident is a travesty of justice, as has been demonstrated in this case. Basically what such a statute says is that if the cost of correcting a hazard exceeds $1M, it is better for the taxpayers if we just ignore it.
When caps are extended to claims against corporations, the same logic will be used. will you be satisifed if, for instance, your child is poisoned and dies (along, with, say 99 other children), will $10,000 fully compensate you for your loss? After all, it would have cost $2M to have made the product safe, so in the interest of providing the cheapest product to the public, your child had to die. Can you see my point?
As I try to explain to people, tort reform won't hurt plaintiff's lawyers. The awards may be smaller, but there will be lots more plaintiffs.
Why of course they become wards of the state, at taxpayer expense. So while you may avoid penalizing the taxpayer on the front end, in the long run you actually end up penalizing him more. Thats why as a conservative I support holding the one who actually caused the harm (if proven negligent) responsible for his actions rather than shift the burden to the public at large. Can you see my point?
America’s law schools did a good job with both of you in their indoctrination of the belief that your sole responsibility is to your client rather than to either society or to the concept of justice under the law. I suppose it’s not too surprising that so many tort lawyers buy into that since it pays so much better than does adherence to higher principles.
Chris Messerly, an attorney with a consortium of lawyers representing survivors and victims’ families for free, said he’s heard similar frustrations from many “despite, I think, some fantastic intentions by nonprofits.”
As of early this month, nearly $1 million had been contributed to the Minnesota Helps: Bridge Disaster Fund
What, pray tell, is EXACTLY your concept of “justice under the law”?
“What, pray tell, is EXACTLY your concept of “justice under the law”?
As the old saw goes, “if you have to ask.........”
Just as i thought, you substitute feelings for thinking. I thought that only liberals did such things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.