"private contractors" the City used to plow come from many of our trade union halls? I mean, you really want to ask one of the Locals to ask it's members to be responsible for damages incurred while they were making huge bank last winter?
That plowed when Walsh's predecessor was in office.
Snark aside, I always thought these guys were either connected to construction outfits like LaRosa (they plow out my way) or were landscapers. In short, they are people who don't work when snow is on the ground otherwise. Not quite "union hall" types either way.
Generally, with exceptions, you are responsible for the actions of your employees and contractors. It's entirely possible, likely, even, that municipalities have exempted themselves from this age-old principle of common law, of course.
Because they did not do too much plowing this past winter. The streets were basically unplowed and any damage to residents vehicles could not have been by plows.
My neighbor is a firefighter who had two vehicles completely wrecked by a snowplow driver on Sumner. These weren't little dings - driver's side doors all completely trashed, back windows shattered. There is ZERO question that a sleepy and/or drunk plow driver caused this, to vehicles that were shoveled out and bare.
This is revolting. The city paid someone to do this. They need to be responsible for it.
Comments
can somebody
explain the justification for city employees/contractors employed by the city causing damage and the city not being liable for it?
i'd have to guess thats some sort of law somewhere, or is the (near) blanket denial just an attempt to dissuade all but the truly incensed?
Because they said so and too
Because they said so and too many judges have allowed sovereign immunity to exist. Laws like taxes are for the little people.
Gee....how many of those
"private contractors" the City used to plow come from many of our trade union halls? I mean, you really want to ask one of the Locals to ask it's members to be responsible for damages incurred while they were making huge bank last winter?
Just wondering.
Probably the same number
That plowed when Walsh's predecessor was in office.
Snark aside, I always thought these guys were either connected to construction outfits like LaRosa (they plow out my way) or were landscapers. In short, they are people who don't work when snow is on the ground otherwise. Not quite "union hall" types either way.
Extremely interesting that in
Extremely interesting that in one of those cases, the city basically said "it's the contractor's fault, sorry, bye."
That's... not how the law works. You're in charge, it's on you.
Except that is how the law
Except that is how the law works. You and your insurance company file a claim against the contractor's insurance company.
Where the buck stops
Generally, with exceptions, you are responsible for the actions of your employees and contractors. It's entirely possible, likely, even, that municipalities have exempted themselves from this age-old principle of common law, of course.
Yup
That's what City Hall said to me when a recycling truck sideswiped my car, legally parked in front of my house. "Too bad but it's not our fault."
It couldn't have been the plows
Because they did not do too much plowing this past winter. The streets were basically unplowed and any damage to residents vehicles could not have been by plows.
It was that damn Yeti, I'm tellin ya.
The only guy doing any snow removal was the Boston Yeti, so obviously he's to blame.
My neighbor is a firefighter
My neighbor is a firefighter who had two vehicles completely wrecked by a snowplow driver on Sumner. These weren't little dings - driver's side doors all completely trashed, back windows shattered. There is ZERO question that a sleepy and/or drunk plow driver caused this, to vehicles that were shoveled out and bare.
This is revolting. The city paid someone to do this. They need to be responsible for it.