Greyhound seats and fleet questions

[mightyjoe1201]

If it's a civil case then it's not going to use the same reasoning ad a criminal one. Things that are considered evidence in criminal may get thrown out in civil. The court doesn't care who's actually at fault legally for the wreck, they look at who should have the biggest burden financially which usually means the bus driver and the bus company. It was the same in the trucking world. One of the favorite seasonings civil courts give for findings again a the bus driver/company is its a dangerous vehicle and shouldn't have been on the road. It happened to a friend of mine and he wasn't even legally at fault for the wreck. I wish greyhound and the drivers family luck there.

 

[tp49]

I can't help but feel that the judge may harbor personal feelings against Greyhound or big companies in general. Of course the judge would never say so publically, but I've just got this gut feeling. After all, Greyhound haters are everywhere and I've never seen a case when the judge tossed the jury's verdict.

At this point, as I see it, if Greyhound broke any laws, it would be going 5 mph over the speed limit. Some claim the D4505 had bad brakes, but there is no evidence and GLI is know for never deferring brake maintenance (they can defer anything other than brakes). Some claim the driver wasn't wearing his glasses, but that's inconceivable from my view as someone who also has poor vision. The evidence of the bent glasses from Jewett's pockets could have been his spares. I sometimes carry my glasses in my pockets when not in use, but there's no way I'm driving without glasses.

And again, most states consider vision as bad as 20/40 to be safe for driving without glasses. Anything worse than 20/40 without glasses would be nigh impossible for the driver to try without immediately crashing.

And then is 5 mph over the limit enough to cause a crash? Could going 5 mph slower have prevented the crash when the SUV had already overturned over the highway? Even if the SUV driver was sober Gonzales instead of drunk Garay, the SUV had still flipped over across the road before the D4505 hit it.

To call the judge a "Greyhound hater" because he granted a motion for new trial is borderline libelous. You also don't practice law so just because you've never seen one granted doesn't mean it doesn't happen. They are rare, but they do happen and I've seen them happen. The public also isn't privy to all of the evidence presented at trial so things may have come out that you haven't heard. Last, there is an appeal mechanism available to Greyhound's counsel which if they believe the judge erred, they can take advantage of and they have at least 60 days to do so.

Finally, California is a "pure comparative fault" state when it comes to damage recovery and while the SUV driver has fault the judge probably believes that the Greyhound operator also has some percentage of fault as well. In some states if you're 50.1% at fault for your injuries you can't recover damages. California is not one of those places.

 

[tp49]

If it's a civil case then it's not going to use the same reasoning ad a criminal one. Things that are considered evidence in criminal may get thrown out in civil. The court doesn't care who's actually at fault legally for the wreck, they look at who should have the biggest burden financially which usually means the bus driver and the bus company. It was the same in the trucking world. One of the favorite seasonings civil courts give for findings again a the bus driver/company is its a dangerous vehicle and shouldn't have been on the road. It happened to a friend of mine and he wasn't even legally at fault for the wreck. I wish greyhound and the drivers family luck there.

The Evidence Code is the same whether in a criminal or civil case. The only place I've seen it relaxed is in an administrative hearing (such as a DMV license revocation or Unemployment appeal.) The burden of proof is different in civil (a preponderance of the evidence) versus criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt.)

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Then if that's the case why do they throw out police reports as hear say? And what should it be the driver/company financially responsible if they ate nit at fault for the wreck? Shouldn't the people who caused the wreck be financially responsible? As in the driver if the suv in this case who already had wrecked and caused the bus crash.

 

[tp49]

They can throw out a police report as hearsay because by the very definition of hearsay it is.

CA Evidence Code sec. 1200. (a) "Hearsay evidence" is evidence of a statement that was

made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that

is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.

(b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

© This section shall be known and may be cited as the hearsay

rule.

There are exceptions that might get a police report in but if it can't be cross-examined it's not reliable and can be excluded.

To answer your other questions (sorry I'll have to take them out of order to save some typing

Shouldn't the people who caused the wreck be financially responsible?

Yes.

And what should it be the driver/company financially responsible if they ate nit at fault for the wreck?

The argument is that the company is at fault for the bus wrecking into the SUV. Additionally, as stated above, in California even if you're 90% responsible for your own injuries under our "pure comparative fault" system you can still collect that 10% from the other party.

As in the driver if the suv in this case who already had wrecked and caused the bus crash.

I think this is the point at issue. The argument made is "but for" the negligence of the Greyhound driver, the end result injuries and death would not have occurred. The claim is that the Greyhound driver was in some way negligent and that negligence led to the ultimate end result. This will be resolved either by a new trial, through the appellate court or via a settlement.

It is not my intent to litigate this matter here, just to provide some level of context. We'll see how things play out.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

tp49, I'm sorry but no matter what the laws might say in any state the civil courts are almost always biased against commercial drivers and their companies. You will never convince me that a driver has any financial responsibility In a situation like this unless they were the legal cause of the accident

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I can't help but feel that the judge may harbor personal feelings against Greyhound or big companies in general. Of course the judge would never say so publically, but I've just got this gut feeling. After all, Greyhound haters are everywhere and I've never seen a case when the judge tossed the jury's verdict.

At this point, as I see it, if Greyhound broke any laws, it would be going 5 mph over the speed limit. Some claim the D4505 had bad brakes, but there is no evidence and GLI is know for never deferring brake maintenance (they can defer anything other than brakes). Some claim the driver wasn't wearing his glasses, but that's inconceivable from my view as someone who also has poor vision. The evidence of the bent glasses from Jewett's pockets could have been his spares. I sometimes carry my glasses in my pockets when not in use, but there's no way I'm driving without glasses.

And again, most states consider vision as bad as 20/40 to be safe for driving without glasses. Anything worse than 20/40 without glasses would be nigh impossible for the driver to try without immediately crashing.

And then is 5 mph over the limit enough to cause a crash? Could going 5 mph slower have prevented the crash when the SUV had already overturned over the highway? Even if the SUV driver was sober Gonzales instead of drunk Garay, the SUV had still flipped over across the road before the D4505 hit it.

To call the judge a "Greyhound hater" because he granted a motion for new trial is borderline libelous. You also don't practice law so just because you've never seen one granted doesn't mean it doesn't happen. They are rare, but they do happen and I've seen them happen. The public also isn't privy to all of the evidence presented at trial so things may have come out that you haven't heard. Last, there is an appeal mechanism available to Greyhound's counsel which if they believe the judge erred, they can take advantage of and they have at least 60 days to do so.

Finally, California is a "pure comparative fault" state when it comes to damage recovery and while the SUV driver has fault the judge probably believes that the Greyhound operator also has some percentage of fault as well. In some states if you're 50.1% at fault for your injuries you can't recover damages. California is not one of those places.

Excuse me, tp49! Go back and read my post again. I didn't not say that the judge is a Greyhound hater. I said I have this gut feeling that he has some "personal feelings against Greyhound." There's a big difference between that and being a Greyhound hater. I followed up by saying that there are many Greyhound haters, but that does not mean I said that the judge himself was a Greyhound hater. There's a difference between public sentiment and personal feelings/opinions.

I know it does happen, but I also know it does not happen often, that a judge tosses a jury's verdict. My point in "I've never seen a case when the judge tossed a jury's verdict" is not to say that it doesn't happen, but to illustrate how rare it is.

Then, in terms of evidence, there is no concrete evidence that Greyhound was negligent. There's only circumstantial evidence against Greyhound. There's no concrete evidence that Greyhound was speeding, that that particular D4505 had bad brakes, or that the driver was not wearing his glasses. There's evidence that the driver had glasses in his pockets, something that anybody with poor vision might have as a spare. A picture of the speedometer surfaced out of nowhere and doesn't prove anything unless someone can prove it was taken on that bus, that night, on that schedule.

You're not unbiased either, tp49, and I know from your past posts that you have your own personal feelings against Greyhound. There's stuff that's written in a book, and then there's stuff that's written in everyone's brain. One cannot ignore the intangibles that are not officially written in law.

If there's concrete evidence that Greyhound was negligent, then I'm convinced. Like I said, I won't support Greyhound forever and I don't like the D4505 in the first place. But there's no concrete evidence, so I'm with Joe on this one. If Greyhound gets punished for negligence without concrete evidence, then it's more anti-bus, anti-commercial-vehicle, and anti-corporate sentiment at work. Tomorrow I'll meet up with my lawyer friend and see what he thinks about this.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Ok, all I'm hearing is that the court is looking to find out if greyhound was negligent but what about the suv? Did the driver of it or anyone else put up warning flares or triangles or anything for that matter to warn other motorists there was an accident before police arrived especially since it was at night?

 

[tp49]

tp49, I'm sorry but no matter what the laws might say in any state the civil courts are almost always biased against commercial drivers and their companies. You will never convince me that a driver has any financial responsibility In a situation like this unless they were the legal cause of the accident

Wasn't trying to convince you, just illustrating why what happened did. Like I said, we'll see what happens down the road whether Greyhound appeals and the ruling is overturned (or not), a new trial makes the same finding (or not) or they settle. I'm sure their counsel will make the right decision for their client's interests.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Why do I have the feeling you do not like any commercial drivers or bus/trucking companies? Your giving me the same nonsense that lawyers who specialize in commercial vehicle accidents gave me when I asked them about cases like this.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

On another subject, I've notice several times people have mentioned greyhound likes to deffer maintenance. Are they pushing intervals further apart or just not doing any?

 

[tp49]

Excuse me, tp49! Go back and read my post again. I didn't not say that the judge is a Greyhound hater. I said I have this gut feeling that he has some "personal feelings against Greyhound." There's a big difference between that and being a Greyhound hater. I followed up by saying that there are many Greyhound haters, but that does not mean I said that the judge himself was a Greyhound hater. There's a difference between public sentiment and personal feelings/opinions.

I know it does happen, but I also know it does not happen often, that a judge tosses a jury's verdict. My point in "I've never seen a case when the judge tossed a jury's verdict" is not to say that it doesn't happen, but to illustrate how rare it is.

Then, in terms of evidence, there is no concrete evidence that Greyhound was negligent. There's only circumstantial evidence against Greyhound. There's no concrete evidence that Greyhound was speeding, that that particular D4505 had bad brakes, or that the driver was not wearing his glasses. There's evidence that the driver had glasses in his pockets, something that anybody with poor vision might have as a spare. A picture of the speedometer surfaced out of nowhere and doesn't prove anything unless someone can prove it was taken on that bus, that night, on that schedule.

You're not unbiased either, tp49, and I know from your past posts that you have your own personal feelings against Greyhound. There's stuff that's written in a book, and then there's stuff that's written in everyone's brain. One cannot ignore the intangibles that are not officially written in law.

If there's concrete evidence that Greyhound was negligent, then I'm convinced. Like I said, I won't support Greyhound forever and I don't like the D4505 in the first place. But there's no concrete evidence, so I'm with Joe on this one. If Greyhound gets punished for negligence without concrete evidence, then it's more anti-bus, anti-commercial-vehicle, and anti-corporate sentiment at work. Tomorrow I'll meet up with my lawyer friend and see what he thinks about this.

Mr. Swadian, you're right I am biased when it comes to Greyhound's customer service and the product they offer including things like state of the terminals, condition of buses, attitudes of employees, operating practices, etc. However, when it comes to something like this I leave that bias behind because there's no correlation between the two. The only evidence I am privy to is that which was reported in the Fresno media. The trial judge and jury are privy to all of the evidence offered in the case. If you know of any evidence that wasn't reported in the media I (and others reading this) would be happy to see it (not hear it only because we're not talking face to face.)

According to The order granting the new trial the court for reasons stated within found there was strong evidence that Greyhound was negligent it also found that the evidence relating to the element of causation was weak. Had the verdict form asked was Greyhound negligent and also asked about the causation element I'm fairly certain the motion would have been denied (I'm guessing that the jury instruction regarding causation wasn't given but that's only a guess.) However, because the verdict form only asked whether Greyhound was negligent we are where we are.

*edited to fix the link

 

[tp49]

Why do I have the feeling you do not like any commercial drivers or bus/trucking companies? Your giving me the same nonsense that lawyers who specialize in commercial vehicle accidents gave me when I asked them about cases like this.

I like commercial drivers and bus/trucking companies just fine. They have a job to do just like I do.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

It doesn't sound that way. You were making it sound as if myself and every other bud and truck driver are unsafe. But whatever.

 

[tp49]

Nope, not at all, but I think we'd both agree that there are unsafe drivers within the ranks and that there are some companies out there who operate in an unsafe manner (*this statement is not being made as an indictment of Greyhound or any specific company.)

I look at these matters as I was trained to which is on a case by case basis and in this thread I am commenting on one specific incident.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Joe, that's just the way lawyers talk. They love to confuse you. My lawyer friend talks the same way. Some days they act like lawyers, other days they act like themselves. Don't fall into the traps that lawyers set. Lawyers, by nature and training, will talk sweet, then beat you up, then talk sweet again. A lawyer will try to convince you of something, then tell you he is not trying to convince you of anything. He will talk nonsense, then hit at your weak spots when you try to counter. Classic lawyer traps. But I can't blame them, because out-talking people is basically their job.

Go with your gut feeling. The US ended up losing the Vietnam War despite massive kill ratios and winning all the battles.

In fight-or-flight against a lawyer, if you fight, you must fight, attack, fight, attack, and fight to final victory. Don't let your guard down.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Anyway, Count John does not have enough assault infantry to finish off the enemy with a decisive assault on their fortifications. Now he is pulling back with Knights to train more infantry.

If one wishes to further discuss the Fresno crash, perhaps a separate thread would be better.

On another subject, I've notice several times people have mentioned greyhound likes to deffer maintenance. Are they pushing intervals further apart or just not doing any?

I think it's a combination of certain drivers not doing pre-trips, turn-and-burn dispatching, and high mileages on each coach.

Ok, all I'm hearing is that the court is looking to find out if greyhound was negligent but what about the suv? Did the driver of it or anyone else put up warning flares or triangles or anything for that matter to warn other motorists there was an accident before police arrived especially since it was at night?

Reportedly, all the occupants of the SUV were injured or killed when the vehicle overturned. So no one could get out to put up any warning. Also, the dark underside of the SUV was facing oncoming traffic. A few cars were able to evade crashing, then the D4505 came by and failed to evade, resulting in the crash.

 

[rickycourtney]

Like with most major crashes involving loss of life there was a investigation into the crash, if memory serves it was conducted by the California Highway Patrol. The SUV lost control and had rolled over onto it's side and was resting with it's front facing the center median and it's undercarriage facing towards the direction of traffic. Therefore the Greyhound driver would have seen nothing but the dirty underside of a SUV in front of him, on a dark road. The occupants of the vehicle were either dead at that point or too severely injured to escape the wrecked SUV and deploy any sort of flare or safety triangle (which most non-commercial passenger vehicles don't have). None of that was disputed in the case.

What was disputed was if the Greyhound driver was negligent and should have done more to avoid the accident. The court found that the evidence showed that at the time of the collision the driver was going over the speed limit, was not wearing his glasses and was traveling in the number one lane, despite not passing another vehicle. Therefore, the driver was negligent and contributed, in part, to causing the crash.

So it might be one of those things that on a re-trial --like TP said-- Greyhound will be found partially at fault, say 10% and therefore the families will be able to collect that 10% from Greyhound.

I believe Greyhound did get a settlement against the family of the driver and collected $100,000 in damages. Greyhound also paid out millions in damages to the passengers onboard who were injured or killed.

Also realize that this case where the families of the young woman inside the SUV are suing Greyhound is just one of many lawsuits surrounding this accident. In fact, Greyhound also sued the driver of the SUV and was paid $100,000 in property damages, Greyhound sued the CHP for negligence in the response to the crash and lost, Greyhound was sued by the passengers in the bus and settled before trial and the passengers in the bus along with the family of the Greyhound driver sued the driver of the SUV and settled before trial.

Personally, I believe that the driver was an excellent man and likely a good driver. I remember we interviewed his family and he was clearly beloved. It was a heartbreaking interview, and I remember them saying how much he enjoyed his work. He likely had his reasons for why he was speeding, why he wasn't wearing his glasses and why he was in the number one lane, despite not passing another vehicle. I woudn't say any of those actions were reckless, but I do think they are --even at some small level-- negligent.

All that being said, it's been a few years since I've had to actively report on this crash and I'm saying most of this from my memory... which is admittedly a bit fuzzy.

 

[rickycourtney]

I doubt the White G's would have outlets installed.

Well as long as we're talking about legal trouble... the ad you linked to specifically says "leather seats, free Wi-Fi and power outlets on every bus". If Greyhound is regularly operating buses that don't have outlets installed, that would be false advertising... something you can be sued for.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Yeah, they could be sued for that. Then I guess the White G4500s do have outlets installed now. I've seen some of them in plain-white livery, similar to the ex-Americanos DL3s. Those plain-white DL3s have gotten the new interior, so I guess the White G4500s have received the same treatment. Greyhound could have done it in-house at the Dallas Maintenance Center, explaining why a large amount of White G's were photographed at Dallas.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

tp49, yeah, unfortunately there are too many drivers and companies that are unsafe. I like greyhound to a point but even they have some drivers that shouldn't be driving.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Swadian, could they have moved the white G's to charter rather then have them on the line runs? From what I've seen you guys post about them they must've been pretty bad.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

You're right, Greyhound does have some drivers that are unsafe. Mostly extra drivers, I think. They seem to be mostly in the East, according to the grapevine and passenger complaints. Also, most of the deferred maintenance seems to be in the East. For example, a X3-45 with malfunctioning electronics was sent out West last year when I rode it. Denver apparently had no Prevost parts to fix it, since the X3-45 isn't common in the West, so it had to go back East for repairs, but not before venturing to Reno first.

Loewy wasn't a good driver but he wasn't particularly unsafe. He just got lost and drove aggressively, as in stomping on the accelerator and brakes. I think he was just inexperienced.

Greyhound customer service does suck, though I've found ways to compensate.

The White G's were supposedly to go to charter runs, but are still being used on line-haul out of the Dallas pool. I could see Greyhound getting sued, but not if they added Wi-Fi and outlets to the White G's. Despite their many problems, the White G does have well-padded seats, light weight, fast speed, immense driving range, and the best fuel economy in Greyhound's fleet. Of course none of that matters if one explodes, but a X3-45 has also exploded.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Unfortunately every company has the unsafe drivers. The few greyhound drivers I've ridden with out east here were pretty safe. Yeah, they kinda were speeding but they weren't going any faster then the rest if traffic.

I've driven for some bug trucking companies that pull the same thing with maintenance issues. They tend to think it's cheaper to wait till you get back to your home terminal then elsewhere.

If the white G's haven't had the upgrades of WiFi etc, yeah they could b sued. But from my experience most of the general public is to stupid to notice. All they know is its a bus.

Tho if one does get filed who knows if it would be someone Taft had actually ridden a greyhound. A lot of people tend to refer to all line haul buses as greyhound including trailways. I've never understood that one.

Never been on a white G. I did think the blue g I was on was uncomfortable. If they are as good as you say it's a shame they turned into junk so quickly.

Any bus could explode given the right circumstances.

Any idea why they seem to have buses with such a long wheelbase out east here where it can make it hard to get around our narrow roads. I'd expect to see them more out west where there is more room.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

I apologize for the spelling errors. Fat fingers and small buttons plus auto correct sometimes gives me words I didn't type.