WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. July 26, 2006: A lawyer who contributes often to the give and take of raging WPCNR discourse, writes:

John,

Putting on my litigation hat for a second (hey, White Plains is getting to be a hard hat area!) I would opine: If ConEd was negligent in its planning for these new storms and did not have enough "stat teams" on call for clearing away and/or linespeoples, then I would say ConEd should make good on public relations and compensate a lot of injured souls.

(More)

If however this was truly an act of god and ConEd was truly overwhelmed and hampered by so many downed trees, then it could rely upon the "we pay for only stuff before the "act of god" and not compensate the $350 and be on safe grounds legally, but bad p.r. for ConEd.

I once went head to head with ConEd for a toe to wall case (electric shut off due to a computer glich - broken toe). We settled but not before engaging in motion practice which was really a pain.

Bottom line: if ConEd did not consider the fierce weather patterns now occurring and prepare for that "war game" scenario, I would say there is some negligence there, more in point that the company is a quasi govt corp acting in a wholly proprietary and monopolistic manner - to prove negligence and be awarded damages/settle is another matter, no matter what ConEd promises.

Remember, just to open the Supreme Court doors requires an outlay of $210.00, win, lose or draw. $150 of food?Not worth the litigation papers in Supreme Court (maybe small claims is the better venue).

Dan Seidel