Page 1 of 1
Dave Matthews Band Dumps 800lbs of Human Waste on Tour Boat
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:08 am
by Apoptosis
Oh man... The next time I go under a bridge on a boat I'm not going to look up!
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- The state of Illinois sued the Dave Matthews Band on Tuesday for allegedly dumping up to 800 pounds of liquid human waste from a bus into the Chicago River, dousing a tour boat filled with passengers.
According to the lawsuit, on August 8 a bus leased by the band was heading to a downtown hotel where members were staying. As the bus crossed the Kinzie Street bridge, the driver allegedly emptied the contents of the septic tank through the bridge's metal grating into the river below.
More than 100 people on an architecture tour were showered with foul-smelling waste. The attorney general's office said no one was seriously injured.
Matthews Band sued over waste dumping
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:24 am
by Amy
So, if the band leased the bus, then isn't the driver part of the bus company? If that is the case, shouldn't the bus company be sued instead of the band since it was the driver doing the dumping?
I agree, though...no looking up at bridges from a river! As a matter of fact, I think I'll head below deck!
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:52 am
by Apoptosis
yeah, but note in the article this statement
"Our driver has stated that he was not involved in this incident," band spokesman John Vlautin said
So more than likely someone else on the bus hit the dump the waste button.
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:07 pm
by Amy
That's kind of contradictory to the statement in the original post:
As the bus crossed the Kinzie Street bridge, the driver allegedly emptied the contents of the septic tank through the bridge's metal grating into the river below.
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:02 pm
by Apoptosis
I think you are missing the point.... This is a lawsuit...
A
lawsuit is defined as: an action brought in a court for the purpose of seeking relief from or remedy for an alleged wrong.
So now that we know what a lawsuit is and that the article talks about two groups of individuals with different stories we can move on.
Side #1 Stated:
As the bus crossed the Kinzie Street bridge, the driver allegedly emptied the contents of the septic tank through the bridge's metal grating into the river below.
allegedly is defined as "represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved".
Side #2 Stated:
"Our driver has stated that he was not involved in this incident"
Involved is defined as "To engage as a participant".
So as you can see it is contradictory. It is supposed to be contradictory! That is why there is a lawsuit over the situation.
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:01 pm
by Amy
Okay, smartass. I was just saying that I think it is kind of strange that the state is suing the band when the driver is the one accused of doing the crime, that's all.
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:26 pm
by Apoptosis
:twisted:
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:34 pm
by infinitevalence
It looks like they are sueing the band because the driver was an employie/contract. Thus while the band is not directly responisble the person involved is their responsibilitiy
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:21 pm
by A10Pilot3
Amy wrote:Okay, smartass. I was just saying that I think it is kind of strange that the state is suing the band when the driver is the one accused of doing the crime, that's all.
sh*t woman... you're going to bring another lock-down...
<edit> no you are, infinitevalence. Temporary lock i will unlock when every one kisses and makes up ;) </edit>
<edit> Unlocked now keep it clean and nice
</edit>