Trinidad Gov't Have No Heart at all

[Mr Fix-it]

Posted in the Express this morning.....3 ppl dead and dis fu*kin man worried bout going after de money......Shameless......I don't think I'll ever want to live home for any extended amount of time willingly....


Govt will seek to recover $.5m for damaged bridge

Ria Taitt Political Editor


Friday, November 6th 2009
 
 
 Government will be seeking to recover $500,000-the estimated cost of repairing the Bailey Bridge damaged yesterday at Macoya-from the owner of the truck which did the damage.

Works Imbert Colm Imbert said yesterday that the owner of the truck ’in law’ was liable. He said he had already received an estimate for repairs to the bridge of $500,000 . (Dis happened yesterday and he already have ah estimate for the Fu*kin thing.....Shameless)

’And we will be moving to recover it from the owner,’ he said. (BTW, de owner died in the FU*KIN CRASH)

He said it was regrettable that three people lost their lives. (Stinkin Mudda CU*T, By now alyu know my blood done hot)

A truck collided with the bridge at 1 a.m. yesterday, forcing the ministry to take the bridge out of service in order to conduct repairs.

Speaking at yesterday’s post-Cabinet news conference at the Diplomatic Centre in St Ann’s, Imbert said the bridge was well lit and there was proper signage when the accident occurred.

’It is the belief of those who have examined this accident that the truck was driving at an excessive speed,’ he said.

The ministry’s team conducting repairs was expected to complete their task by midnight and if all went well, the bridge should be back in service by then, Imbert said.

The Minister, however, stressed that a new bridge-a reinforced concrete bridge up to international standards, with a pedestrian walkway - was currently being constructed at that location. And that bridge is almost complete, he said, revealing that December 10 was the target date for its opening, ’by which time the Bailey Bridge would be removed and there should be free flow of traffic on the Churchill- Roosevelt Highway’.

On the damage to the Bailey Bridge at Balandra, Imbert said Government was currently assessing the cost, which would be very expensive.

’It has cost us millions of dollars to repair the bridge,’ he said.
 

[kounty]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

[Mr Fix-it]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

Yeah I understand dat but gosh man, de ppl not even in de flippin ground yet and he wah de money.

[TdotTrini]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

Yeah I understand dat but gosh man, de ppl not even in de flippin ground yet and he wah de money.

If it was driver negligence what does it matter if he'sburied or not.

[weary1969]

D timing of d statement may b bad but it is time we learn in dis sweet TNT actions have consequences.

[Mr Fix-it]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

Yeah I understand dat but gosh man, de ppl not even in de flippin ground yet and he wah de money.

If it was driver negligence what does it matter if he'sburied or not.

I understand where yu coming from TT but, yu think it's fair to his wife and kid dat it splash up in de papers dat Gov't looking for repayment for damage done?  Normal ppl wouldn't even mention dat, it would have been done close doors and with the insurance company.  But instead, it in the print media and it really show (at least to me) dat the present administration really doh care bout the population.  Why de Gov't doh go and solve de flippin crime situation....Den tackle Drunk driving.........

[TdotTrini]

Ok i'm fine with your comments on print media vs close doors, but to suggest that Gov't should wait to tackle drunk driving is ludicrous and myopic. My best friend was killed by a drunk driver a few years back. I don't think this drunk paid the price for lack of better judgement. He probably still drinking and driving. 


Do you think he was fair to his wife and children, society as a whole. People are held ramsom while he chance getting from A to B being intoxicated behind the wheel.   Hey, assuming that this truck driver was drunk when this happened in the first place.

[dinho]

http://img688.imageshack.us/slideshow/webplayer.php?id=img8408.jpg

[weary1969]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

Yeah I understand dat but gosh man, de ppl not even in de flippin ground yet and he wah de money.

If it was driver negligence what does it matter if he'sburied or not.

I understand where yu coming from TT but, yu think it's fair to his wife and kid dat it splash up in de papers dat Gov't looking for repayment for damage done?  Normal ppl wouldn't even mention dat, it would have been done close doors and with the insurance company.  But instead, it in the print media and it really show (at least to me) dat the present administration really doh care bout the population.  Why de Gov't doh go and solve de flippin crime situation....Den tackle Drunk driving.........

FYI DRUNK DRIVING is part of the crime problem. If u could get away wit drunk drivin u could get away wit murder in TNT. Is only now dey strt 2 charge people 4 motor manslaughter.

[Mr Fix-it]

Ok i'm fine with your comments on print media vs close doors, but to suggest that Gov't should wait to tackle drunk driving is ludicrous and myopic. My best friend was killed by a drunk driver a few years back. I don't think this drunk paid the price for lack of better judgement. He probably still drinking and driving. 


Do you think he was fair to his wife and children, society as a whole. People are held ramsom while he chance getting from A to B being intoxicated behind the wheel.   Hey, assuming that this truck driver was drunk when this happened in the first place.

Point

[Mr Fix-it]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

Yeah I understand dat but gosh man, de ppl not even in de flippin ground yet and he wah de money.

If it was driver negligence what does it matter if he'sburied or not.

I understand where yu coming from TT but, yu think it's fair to his wife and kid dat it splash up in de papers dat Gov't looking for repayment for damage done?  Normal ppl wouldn't even mention dat, it would have been done close doors and with the insurance company.  But instead, it in the print media and it really show (at least to me) dat the present administration really doh care bout the population.  Why de Gov't doh go and solve de flippin crime situation....Den tackle Drunk driving.........

FYI DRUNK DRIVING is part of the crime problem. If u could get away wit drunk drivin u could get away wit murder in TNT. Is only now dey strt 2 charge people 4 motor manslaughter.

Point

[weary1969]

i belive car insurance spposed to cover any damage yor car case.  if that is not the law in t&t yet, gov't need to get crackin instead of talkin bot picopoatt and all sorts of bs in parliament.

Yeah I understand dat but gosh man, de ppl not even in de flippin ground yet and he wah de money.

If it was driver negligence what does it matter if he'sburied or not.

I understand where yu coming from TT but, yu think it's fair to his wife and kid dat it splash up in de papers dat Gov't looking for repayment for damage done?  Normal ppl wouldn't even mention dat, it would have been done close doors and with the insurance company.  But instead, it in the print media and it really show (at least to me) dat the present administration really doh care bout the population.  Why de Gov't doh go and solve de flippin crime situation....Den tackle Drunk driving.........

FYI DRUNK DRIVING is part of the crime problem. If u could get away wit drunk drivin u could get away wit murder in TNT. Is only now dey strt 2 charge people 4 motor manslaughter.

Point

Pt is u have 2 strt somewhere so crime is crime. Doh get on like drunk drivin eh a crime. It might not b number 1 on your list but lawlessness is lawlessness and we lawless.

[fishs]

 First off this is again a Minister bumping he gum without thinking.
Who he going after ? A dead man?
Even if the man was alive the burden of proof for negligence is on the goverment.
How he proving negligence?
Where is the proof that the driver was drunk or speeding.
Even if they can eventually prove that it was the driver's fault , do you honestly think this man (if he was alive) will be able to cough up 500K.
And if the insurance company is liable how long will the court process take in TT ?

Why he doh ask Karamath to pay back the millions now that he dead, why not ask fire one to pay for the destruction of a fair pricing of flag pole building.

The issue of drunk driving and enforcement of laws in TT is a next issue, why is the breathlyser bill still in limbo ?
Where are the road traffic police for enforcement.
This minister obviously does not realise that as a legislator he is as liable for the lawlessness as the drunk driver
We elect them to make and pass laws that better our live through implementing laws and enforcing those laws so that we are protected to some measure.
What is the drunk driving law ? What are the penalties? Enlighhten me  please min Imbert

[Jah Gol]

First off this is again a Minister bumping he gum without thinking.
Who he going after ? A dead man?
Even if the man was alive the burden of proof for negligence is on the goverment.
How he proving negligence?
Where is the proof that the driver was drunk or speeding.
Even if they can eventually prove that it was the driver's fault , do you honestly think this man (if he was alive) will be able to cough up 500K.
And if the insurance company is liable how long will the court process take in TT ?

Why he doh ask Karamath to pay back the millions now that he dead, why not ask fire one to pay for the destruction of a fair pricing of flag pole building.

The issue of drunk driving and enforcement of laws in TT is a next issue, why is the breathlyser bill still in limbo ?
Where are the road traffic police for enforcement.
This minister obviously does not realise that as a legislator he is as liable for the lawlessness as the drunk driver
We elect them to make and pass laws that better our live through implementing laws and enforcing those laws so that we are protected to some measure.
What is the drunk driving law ? What are the penalties? Enlighhten me  please min Imbert

You're right. They would have to prove negligence to even think about recovering money.

[Disgruntled_Trini]

Well I want piece of the pie too.

Because of the accident, it took over a hour to cross the bridge at 1pm this afternoon thus causing me to miss my flight to Tobago.

So instead of drinking rum in Tobago and getting ready to play in ah best fete match tournament tomorrow.

Instead I in the standby line writing this message 4hrs later.

[weary1969]

Well I want piece of the pie too.

Because of the accident, it took over a hour to cross the bridge at 1pm this afternoon thus causing me to miss my flight to Tobago.

So instead of drinking rum in Tobago and getting ready to play in ah best fete match tournament tomorrow.

Instead I in the standby line writing this message 4hrs later.

Thanks 4 d info will pass Caroni 2morr for meh airport run.

[Bakes]

First off this is again a Minister bumping he gum without thinking.
Who he going after ? A dead man?
Even if the man was alive the burden of proof for negligence is on the goverment.
How he proving negligence?
Where is the proof that the driver was drunk or speeding.
Even if they can eventually prove that it was the driver's fault , do you honestly think this man (if he was alive) will be able to cough up 500K.
And if the insurance company is liable how long will the court process take in TT ?

Why he doh ask Karamath to pay back the millions now that he dead, why not ask fire one to pay for the destruction of a fair pricing of flag pole building.

The issue of drunk driving and enforcement of laws in TT is a next issue, why is the breathlyser bill still in limbo ?
Where are the road traffic police for enforcement.
This minister obviously does not realise that as a legislator he is as liable for the lawlessness as the drunk driver
We elect them to make and pass laws that better our live through implementing laws and enforcing those laws so that we are protected to some measure.
What is the drunk driving law ? What are the penalties? Enlighhten me  please min Imbert

May be a lot easier than you think... the carnage itself might serve prima facie proof of negligent operation of the vehicle, unless it can be shown (by his estate or the insurance company) that the vehicle malfunctioned.  Even if the vehicle malfunctioned that then raises questions as to whether it was properly maintained/inspected etc.

How long has that Bailey bridge beein in operation and has there been any other incidents at that spot?  Why is it that this one driver crashed... and not only crashed, but crashed with such force as to indicate a high rate of speed?  All this again w/o taking into account the eyewitness reports of speeding.  I easily see the government meeting 4/5 necessary elements to show negligence, and the 5th (which must be proved as well) may not be that hard to prove.

[STEUPS!!]

d timing of d statement was rel off key. he cuda wait a week or two. my question is was it necessary for the minister to make a public statement on this scenario  

[weary1969]

d timing of d statement was rel off key. he cuda wait a week or two. my question is was it necessary for the minister to make a public statement on this scenario  

Of course not all dey hard to do was bring a lawsuit against d man estate when dey prove it was negligence. I guess dey tryin 2 show dat dey doin sumting. But wit this govt foot in mouth is dey MO.

[mukumsplau]

when i hear he wa get back d 500k i tort probably it was d contractor who hadda pay dat..well das assumin d truck belong to a contractor. imo truck drivers too damn reckless. if wit normal daytime traffic dem does be playin go speed racer go and wanna be bossin d road den wat yuh expect at 1/2 a.m. in d mornin...is only speed coulda cause dat accident..ppl know is to take dey time on dat bailey...

[weary1969]

when i hear he wa get back d 500k i tort probably it was d contractor who hadda pay dat..well das assumin d truck belong to a contractor. imo truck drivers too damn reckless. if wit normal daytime traffic dem does be playin go speed racer go and wanna be bossin d road den wat yuh expect at 1/2 a.m. in d mornin...is only speed coulda cause dat accident..ppl know is to take dey time on dat bailey...

Dat is d worse had 2 pass dey 2 go Piarco twice in d past 2 mths and have 2 make another run dis weekend. LOUDDDDDDDDD STEUPSSSSSSSSSS

[fishs]

First off this is again a Minister bumping he gum without thinking.
Who he going after ? A dead man?
Even if the man was alive the burden of proof for negligence is on the goverment.
How he proving negligence?
Where is the proof that the driver was drunk or speeding.
Even if they can eventually prove that it was the driver's fault , do you honestly think this man (if he was alive) will be able to cough up 500K.
And if the insurance company is liable how long will the court process take in TT ?

Why he doh ask Karamath to pay back the millions now that he dead, why not ask fire one to pay for the destruction of a fair pricing of flag pole building.

The issue of drunk driving and enforcement of laws in TT is a next issue, why is the breathlyser bill still in limbo ?
Where are the road traffic police for enforcement.
This minister obviously does not realise that as a legislator he is as liable for the lawlessness as the drunk driver
We elect them to make and pass laws that better our live through implementing laws and enforcing those laws so that we are protected to some measure.
What is the drunk driving law ? What are the penalties? Enlighhten me  please min Imbert

May be a lot easier than you think... the carnage itself might serve prima facie proof of negligent operation of the vehicle, unless it can be shown (by his estate or the insurance company) that the vehicle malfunctioned.  Even if the vehicle malfunctioned that then raises questions as to whether it was properly maintained/inspected etc.

How long has that Bailey bridge beein in operation and has there been any other incidents at that spot?  Why is it that this one driver crashed... and not only crashed, but crashed with such force as to indicate a high rate of speed?  All this again w/o taking into account the eyewitness reports of speeding.  I easily see the government meeting 4/5 necessary elements to show negligence, and the 5th (which must be proved as well) may not be that hard to prove.

Remember this is the TT justice system we dealing with to which quick and sophisticated are misnomers

[Bakes]

Remember this is the TT justice system we dealing with to which quick and sophisticated are misnomers

Yeah but the question wasn't whether the government would be able to recover in a "quick and sophisticated" manner... it was whether they could prove a cause of action.

[fishs]

Remember this is the TT justice system we dealing with to which quick and sophisticated are misnomers

Yeah but the question wasn't whether the government would be able to recover in a "quick and sophisticated" manner... it was whether they could prove a cause of action.

The process to prove cause of action by them will not be quick and sophjsticated/ (I' sounding like weary)

[Bakes]

The process to prove cause of action by them will not be quick and sophjsticated/ (I' sounding like weary)

What are you talking about... and yeah yuh not only sounding, but starting to reason like weary as well. 

There is no 'process' to prove cause of action... it's a legal proceeding, you file your claim, state your prima facie case and move on to discovery.  The biggest hurdle to any claim is stating a legally sufficient cause of action aka proving yuh have a case.  There is prima facie evidence based on the amount of damage that high speed was involved, that is sufficient to get the case into court.  Mind you, this may not even go into court.  If the accident investigators can show definitively that the crash was the result of driver error then the insurance company would have to pay.  The only court case would revolve around how much... with the insurance companies wanting to pay the minimum, and the state going for full recovery, which is where a case against his estate would come in.