If your cell phone falls in the toilet, what you gonna do

Railroadman schrieb:


> What many may not realize is that those modern retention toilets on
> many cars (I am most familiar with Amtrak Superliners) will shutdown
> on the entire car, if something indigestible goes into one toilet.
> Last year, returning on the Sunset Ltd. from Houston, someone had put
> a diaper in a toilet on 0230 west of SanAntonio. It was finally fixed
> at NewOrleans after several attempts elsewhere, and it cost a 2 hour
> delay at NewOrleans.
> Design Flaw, Perhaps, but those are the same toilets that are used on
> the high and mighty airliners.



And ... do they shut down the plane?

h.

---

› See More: If your cell phone falls in the toilet, what you gonna do

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:18:58 -0500, "Candide"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>X-No-archive: yes
>
>According to local television news, Metro North is considering suing the
>man in question for damages caused by rerouting trains/passenger delays/
>etc, not to mention the costs of the work crew with blow torches cutting
>apart the WC.
>
>Candide

That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
havoc.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"kl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tio5qvg00d3ae7420a292lcqpd6f08pr9o@news...
> Reach in and try to grab it, of course
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters) --Cell phone users have been known to complain about
poor
> service, but one New York man's mobile literally went down the toilet.
>
> The man was on a suburban train from Grand Central Station on Wednesday
night
> when he went to the bathroom to make a phone call, dropped the phone into
the
> toilet bowl and then his hand and arm became stuck trying to retrieve it,
> officials said.
>
> Metro-North Railroad staff could not help the man, so they stopped the
train and
> called police officers and firefighters to extricate him, a process that
took 90
> minutes using "jaws of life" rescue equipment.
>
> "The toilets are made of aluminum so I imagine he was down on hands and
knees
> with his shirt rolled up and hand and arm down inside, trying to flush out
his
> cell phone," said Jim Cameron of the Connecticut Metro-North commuter
council.
>
> He said that because of the design of the train toilet, the mobile
probably
> ended up in a chemical holding tank.
>
> A spokesman for the railroad that serves the northern suburbs of New York
and
> Connecticut identified the man as Edwin Gallard, 41, of New York, who
suffered a
> minor injury to his arm as firefighters cut the toilet apart.
>
> The track was closed and thousands of commuters were delayed during the
evening
> rush hour.

But why could not the train continue its journey while this was going on?

Peter Fox

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Curly Sue) wrote:

> That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
> financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
> for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
> havoc.

If he has home-owners or renters insurance he might be covered.

X-No-archive: yes





"Curly Sue" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
> financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
> for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
> havoc.
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Well it seems Metro-North is going to go after the man to pony up. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ny...partner=GOOGLE

Candide

"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's
cheaper."
Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999
_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+_+_+_
Please do not include entire "X-No-archive: yes" message in your
response.

Candide <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ny...partner=GOOGLE


Best part of the article:

Diana Finlay, a hospital administrator waiting for a train to take her
home to Fishkill, N.Y., agreed. "I think it's pretty lousy of them to
expect him to cover the cost," she said. "Do they go after the people
who are attempting suicide on the tracks when they have to stop the
trains for them?"

LOL !

Curly Sue wrote:

> That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
> financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
> for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
> havoc.

Why should the railroad pay for his stupidity?

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>> That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
>> financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
>> for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
>> havoc.
>
>Why should the railroad pay for his stupidity?
>

Do they compensate passengers who are inconvenienced in cases of their
own stupidity, incompetance, or accidents? Do they run a spare and
tight budget with no waste? Frankly, if they want to make a big deal
out of this incident, they'd better be careful- they might get it back
in return.

I could understand making a fiancial example of this guy if it was a
case of vandalism or something that happens on a regular basis. But
after the publicity and embarrasment this guy brought on himself, I
doubt that this is going to more than a freak accident.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
>
> Do they compensate passengers who are inconvenienced in cases of their
> own stupidity, incompetance, or accidents?

Do the passengers sue?
Apples and oranges.... The guy isn't volunteering to pay in this case,
anymore than the railroad would in most cases of its stupidity.
The passengers are free to sue..

Do they run a spare and
> tight budget with no waste

Interesting.. Complain about a tight budget, but then complain when they
try to get back money spent from the person responsible for spending it.

> I could understand making a fiancial example of this guy if it was a
> case of vandalism or something that happens on a regular basis. But
> after the publicity and embarrasment this guy brought on himself, I
> doubt that this is going to more than a freak accident.

If someone accidentally damages your property, do you make them pay, or
do you pay? If someone accidentally runs into your car with their car,
would you take the burden of paying for it?

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 22:07:45 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
>>
>> Do they compensate passengers who are inconvenienced in cases of their
>> own stupidity, incompetance, or accidents?
>
>Do the passengers sue?

They should. But fortunately Metro-North has size on its side. Most
people won't sue over 10 min per day of lost productivity or family
life even though it adds up over time, because they'd have to spend
money upfront to do so. And across a population, the company is
sucking up a lot of money as time from customers.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 22:07:45 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>Do they compensate passengers who are inconvenienced in cases of their
>>>own stupidity, incompetance, or accidents?
>>
>>Do the passengers sue?
>
>
> They should. But fortunately Metro-North has size on its side. Most
> people won't sue over 10 min per day of lost productivity or family
> life even though it adds up over time, because they'd have to spend
> money upfront to do so. And across a population, the company is
> sucking up a lot of money as time from customers.

Delays in a complicate transportation are a bit different than getting
yourself stuck in a toilet because you just had to have you cell phone.

You didn't argue that customers couldn't sue, only that they wouldn't.
This doesn't mean the RR shouldn't sue over a costly mistake by a
passenger. If a stupid mistake by a driver causes monetary damages to
the RR, I am sure you would think it is reasonable for them to sue.
Why can't they sue for this loss?

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:19:31 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 22:07:45 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>Do they compensate passengers who are inconvenienced in cases of their
>>>>own stupidity, incompetance, or accidents?
>>>
>>>Do the passengers sue?
>>
>>
>> They should. But fortunately Metro-North has size on its side. Most
>> people won't sue over 10 min per day of lost productivity or family
>> life even though it adds up over time, because they'd have to spend
>> money upfront to do so. And across a population, the company is
>> sucking up a lot of money as time from customers.
>
>Delays in a complicate transportation are a bit different than getting
>yourself stuck in a toilet because you just had to have you cell phone.
>
>You didn't argue that customers couldn't sue, only that they wouldn't.
>This doesn't mean the RR shouldn't sue over a costly mistake by a
>passenger. If a stupid mistake by a driver causes monetary damages to
>the RR, I am sure you would think it is reasonable for them to sue.
>Why can't they sue for this loss?

They can but they shouldn't.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel wrote:

>> That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
>> financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
>> for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
>> havoc.
>
>Why should the railroad pay for his stupidity?

They do it all the time. Settling that way is cheaper than
defending a lawsuit even if they win same.

--
===> Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please <===

Phil Kane -- Beaverton, Oregon
PNW Milepost 754 -- Tillamook District

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 01:07:39 GMT, "Martin Underwood" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"kl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:tio5qvg00d3ae7420a292lcqpd6f08pr9o@news...
>> Reach in and try to grab it, of course
>>
>> NEW YORK (Reuters) --Cell phone users have been known to complain about
>poor
>> service, but one New York man's mobile literally went down the toilet.
>
>I liked the statement that 'the rail company was "not particularly
>interested" in going through the toilet's waste tank to retrieve the lost
>phone'. And would the customer *really* want it back after he knew what it
>had been "marinated" in?
>
>
All quite beside the point. Doesn't everyone know by now that if you
dowse a cell phone it is irrevocably killed? Ask a rep at a cell
phone store what the number one cause of returned dead phones is.
People dropped them in the toilet.

This guy was on a fool's errand.

Brian Wickham

Phil Kane wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:51:21 GMT, mrtravel wrote:
>
>
>>>That would be nasty. Paying for his own rescue will probably be a
>>>financial hardship as it is; there's no sense in bankrupting the guy
>>>for a stupid mistake. It's not like he did it on purpose to create
>>>havoc.
>>
>>Why should the railroad pay for his stupidity?
>
>
> They do it all the time. Settling that way is cheaper than
> defending a lawsuit even if they win same.

They aren't defending, they would be the plaintiff.