Comments on: A bridge too far

By: Mike S.

Mike S. — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:37:46 +0000

> Maybe if they built the damn bridge so people wouldn’t be sitting on the bottom of the Mississippi River UNDER the bridge DEAD……… there wouldn’t be a need for trial lawyers. HELLO???

You’re absolutely right — and since YOU are a taxpayer, I hereby insist that YOU pay for EVERY single one of these judgements.

….hey, where ya goin’? Get back here….

By: Douglas E. Schmidt

Douglas E. Schmidt — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:17:54 +0000

All of you who are “scared of the ghosts and goblins” of lawsuits against the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota should “cool your jets”. We have a “cap” on governmental liability of $1 million per occurrence. This applies to both the State and the City. Neither will be bankrupt. There will be $100 million in injuries and damages with only $2 million of exposure by the City and the State.

Further, how could the City be responsible for a state and federal bridge???

You might want to know the facts, or stopping using drugs and alcohol, before you express your opinions in the future!!!

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:41:42 +0000

The highways are federal; the bridges are often local. The inspectors operate under Fed authority and issue repair mandates on to the states, cities, counties, etc…without, mind you, providing any funds.
Now, as far as bankrupting the city, I imagine that is a stretch. But, for a lobby which is so heavily left-leaning, which typically strive to advance wealth-redistribution, this could be a fine way to achieve that end…at least in theory.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:23:15 +0000

Maybe if they built the damn bridge so people wouldn’t be sitting on the bottom of the Mississippi River UNDER the bridge DEAD……… there wouldn’t be a need for trial lawyers. HELLO???
But hey.. maybe thats just ME!

By: chuckR

chuckR — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:33:07 +0000

“And the bridge was listed as defective and needing replacement.”

That is incorrect. The bridge was listed as structurally deficient and not needing imminent replacement. Engineers, like lawyers, have terms of art. Granted, a better term could be employed….
Also, do you think it likely that the Feds will allow themselves to be dragged into this? Maybe if J. Edwards is elected Prez.

By: Bob Neal

Bob Neal — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:20:03 +0000

The bridge was listed as DEFICIENT not defective. And, BTW, the funding was mostly federal, but the state built it. The bridge was expected to continue to operate beyond 2020.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:44:04 +0000

Come now. It’s an interstate highway. Funding for Interstate highway bridges is 90% federal funding.

And the bridge was listed as defective and needing replacement.

By: David Mattheisen

David Mattheisen — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:24:01 +0000

I live in Minnesota and I am afraid of the lawsuits that will now be presented to the city of Minneapolis. These lawsuits will bankrupt the city (we’re talking multi-defendants and MULTI-lawyers) which will mandate more and more taxes. No matter which way you look at it, we’re screwed…

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:54:06 +0000

David.
Nice catch. As I was driving in to my comfy gov’t job, I was thinking the same thing…how long will it be until the sharks start to circle? If I were a Vegas regular, I would try and book odds on the types, volume, and number of cases filed in the next 96 hours.

The real victims? Minn. tax payers…stand by with that lubricant…you might feel a slight sting and a little pressure.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:23:47 +0000

The only thing I am surprised at is that a lawyer can’t file a lawsuit against persons unknown for persons unknown (or can they?). I wonder how many lawsuits were filed in the "favorite" bridge collapse of physicists (because it demonstrates the phenomenon of resonance), Galloping Gertie.