Fort Worth Facing An ‘Act Of God’ Over Street Light

By Selena Hernandez, CBS 11 News

FORT WORTH (CBSDFW.COM) – The City of Fort Worth has found itself asking, ‘What would Jesus do?’ after one of the city’s street lights fell and damaged a man’s car.

Under Texas law, the city isn’t responsible for the damage. Rather, it’s considered an act of God.

“I just hear this bang, and the car shakes,” Greg Buetel recalled. “I looked in the rear-view mirror and there’s no one behind me and I notice in the street, there’s a huge street light.”

Greg Buetel’s story started an an intersection. A chance stop off 287 and North Tarrant Parkway last month, when he got a sudden jolt from above.

“It caved my trunk and my trunk had to be replaced,” Buetel said. “It also damaged my quarter panel.”

Buetel’s Hyundai Sonata suffered $2000 of damage from the unexpected falling light. Buetel contacted the City of Fort Worth, seeking compensation.

“I filed the claim and then I was told unless they are on sight causing the damage, the state protects them from any liability.”

“It’s an act of God,” Jason Lamers with the City of Fort Worth said.

“Unfortunately, it’s not a city employee that did something wrong or broke something with malice.”

An act of God is something Buetel is familiar with – he is, after all, the pastor of Light the World Church in Keller. Yet, the city’s “act” of not paying for his damage, is something Buetel is willing to forgive. But one he still finds upsetting.

“I don’t have any choice to drive those streets,” Buetel said. “I put confidence in the city that their workmanship doesn’t fall on my vehicle.”

“We need to follow state law,” Lamers said. “State law basically lays out the liability for cities like this, and that law is in place to protect tax payers.”

“In the end, I don’t question God when good things happen -so i don’t question when bad things happen. i just trust he’ll take care of me”

That light has yet to be fixed. The city says it’s looking into it.

Comments

One Comment

  1. FedUpTxn says:

    God wasn’t responsible for the care and maintenance of this light, the City was. It’s not like it was knocked off during a storm. I’d be calling a lawyer or making a report to the state because this is a BS excuse!

    1. JuliaB55 says:

      Right on, FedUp Txn! But hey, the city needs to keep its taxpayer dollars to fund their workers’ fat pensions and other bennies, courtesy of…you!

  2. Just Deb says:

    Wait a minute. Isn’t there some law about the separation of church and state?

    1. Penchant says:

      No… there isn’t actually.

      1. rob says:

        youre right its not a law… it is a constitutional requirement which is above the law

      2. Brian says:

        Jeez Rob, seriously? A constitutional requirement? Above the law? Separation of church and state is an idea that was expressed by Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to a church. It’s not a “law” and its certainly not a “constitutional requirement” what ever you think that is.

      3. viking says:

        There isn’t a Separation of Church & State anywhere in the Constitution.

      4. Mike says:

        poor Rob, lack of basic high school education has robbed him of credibility. You have a computer, educate yourself since high school civics didn’t do it for you.

      5. George Whitefield says:

        Yes… there is actually. It is called the First Amendment. Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, etc. All 9 Justices agreed with the “wall of separation between church and state” definition, and the court has held this definition ever since. This definition is older than the national motto ‘In God we trust,’ 1956, and older than ‘under God,’ 1954, being in the pledge.

      6. George Whitefield says:

        Jeez Brian, seriously? lol you don’t know what you are talking about. I can only assume you are a Texan, and know as little about the Supreme Court as your governor. The Constitution, which you view so religiously, established the Supreme Court, and as outlined in the Federalist papers (by the Founders), have the power(responsibility) of judicial review. Through this process, the Court has been forced to interpret the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and has supported it’s definition unanimously ever since. You are wrong, The First Amendment is a “law” and the interpretation of it by the Court establishes it as a “constitutional requirement.”

      7. George Whitefield says:

        You can’t argue “founders intent” while ignoring Jefferson’s intent. You can’t argue “its not in the Constitution” while arguing “founders intent.” Also, without the implied power of judicial review, none of the Bill of Rights would have been incorporated to the states. You wouldnt want that would you.

      8. Spanky says:

        viking said: “There isn’t a Separation of Church & State anywhere in the Constitution.”

        Sure there is.

        It’s just after the part that says illegal immigrants should be treated like citizens and before the part that says abortion is legal. It’s also in the same part that says the federal government can require citizens to buy health insurance.

      9. John Moser says:

        Jeez George can’t you read? I can only assume you are Californian and you enjoy fascism as much as your Governor.
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
        That’s pretty clear. The federal govt. will not establish a chuch. Period. Non-simpletons do not require a Supreme Court to tell us that, what is stated in plain English, means something else entirely. BTW that doesn’t even apply to state and local governments.

      10. Michael says:

        George, you’re an idiot, the supreme court was wrong then and it is now. Search your feelings…you know it to be true!

      11. rjm2238 says:

        The only word on this subject in the Constitution is the Establishment Clause in the first amendment. This prevents the government from establishing a national religion and requiring all to belong to it, ala the Church of England then and Islam in many places today.
        That is all it says, Jefferson’s mention of “Separation…” is not in the Constitution, it was a completely different correspondence made at a different time and addressed to different people for a different reason.
        Sorry folks but there is no separation expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and that is a natural fact.
        PS: I am not a religious guy, so I have no bone pick here, however I am fairly religious when it comes to the truth and my country.
        Rich in New Mexico.

      12. Bob says:

        Jeez George, seriously?? I think your the one that needs to go back and read Everson v. Board of Education, because your the one that doesn’t get it right. I have to assume that you must be from someplace like San Francisco, or some other liberal bastion.

      13. Bill Smith says:

        You are right, it’s not a law and neither is it in the Constitution. The Constitution forbids the Congress from making any laws promoting religion. A godless U.S Supreme court decided that governments cannot promote religion nor display religious symbols. The two things are not the same! The Constitution specifically aims the law at Congress and not the states.

        If there really is such a thing as a complete separation of state and religion, then this city is illegally using God as an excuse for avoiding paying for the damage its property caused. That light did not fall because God made it fall, and nobody in their right mind would believe it did. It fell due to wear and tear on the pole or the hardware that secured it to the pole. I’m sure a forensic investigation would show this to be the cause. The state needs to change the law but it won’t do this until somebody sues.

    2. dghattierdc says:

      Rob
      No there is not a seaparation, Just not making laws reflecting establishment of a STATE religion or stopping the free expression there of. The currrent interpretation is a tortured one not intended by the Founders.
      And besides if lack of proper maintanance of the lamp pole can be determined, it isnt an act of GOd, its the cities problem for not checking.
      Pay the mans bill.

    3. the tennesseean says:

      We have separation of Church and State in Nashville TN. One city block separates State Street and Church Street… :-{)}

    4. Ghostsouls says:

      According to most government offices of today there is no god, you can’t invoke the word god, so how can they now hide behind god? Also, that needs to be investigated further, acts of god does not constitute, if the item was not properly installed by city workers and they were negligent when it was installed, nor does it cover, that it deteriorated and was left unchecked and they did not maintain it properly. He needs an attorney.

      1. Ghostsouls says:

        Also, if I were an aethiest, I would take the city to court, and do 2 things first make them PROVE there IS a god, not just a belief, and Secondly that if they prove there is a god, that it was God that did drop the light on his car!!

      2. Darold Boucher says:

        Of course if you were an athiest then you’d have to PROVE that there ISN’T a God. Let’s all come together and sing: “May the circle be unbroken”

      3. Kranix says:

        Actually no, and atheist does NOT have to prove there is no god. They are not the one making a positive claim, so they have to provide nothing. The burden of proof falls on the one asserting there is a god/higher power/whatever.

    5. Beard CEO says:

      Separation of church and state means that Obama cannot become the head of the Catholic church. You folks who literally think “separation” means something physical is funny.. same folks who gripe about “In God We Trust” as our nation’s motto but have yet to complain that it’s on your money

    6. tomSERVO says:

      It’s just right after Charlie Rangel’s favorite, the good and plenty clause.

    7. jake says:

      No. there isn’t.

  3. Bethany says:

    With all the hype of protestors taking God out of everything, I do not think it is fair for them to use Him when its conveinent for them. In God we trust and Merry Christmas!

    1. EmmOne says:

      The term originates from the 13th century when people still believed the Earth was the center of the universe and infections were caused by noxious vapors. Like many areas of law, the literal meaning of the term itself is irrelevant.

      Often lawyers use the term “force majure” which is (mostly) the same concept without the silly mythological baggage, but it is unlikely you’ll find a government employee who can even read that, let alone say it.

      1. Clearhead says:

        “EmmOne” reminds me of my Marine Corps rifle whose muzzle velocity was about 2,750 feet per second. IIt was called an “M1”) “EmmOne” seems to have a muzzle velocity much lower than that of my M1, and doesn’t seem to realize he’s been outclassed. It is very nice to learn however that the literal meaning of the law has no relevance to the law itself. Now we can all do whatever we please, law, or no law. Lawyers use words in the performance of their ‘practice’, therefore, by “EmmOne” ‘s declaration most of their statements are ‘irrelevant’. One reason a government employee would have trouble reading, or pronouncing your quoted term is because you have mis-spelled it. The Proper spelling of the word, as some lawyers (and thread commentators) demonstrate clearly is not ‘force majure” but rather “FARCE MANURE”.

    2. george says:

      EmmOne is correct. “Act of God” is a very old legal term of art. Using it has nothing to do with current-day belief or disbelief in a higher being.

  4. TJP says:

    God decided when it should fall, but the city was responsible for making sure it didn’t fall at all. Act of God should be reserved for massive windstorms or lightning strikes or things like that.

    1. DaveAgain says:

      For purposes of insurance, it generally is, unless some idiot tries to defy the laws of physics. With manmade structures and other such junk, shabby workmanship or design was to blame.

      But then, who makes the laws? Untrustworthy politicians. So apparently God lives on Earth in the form of numerous city utility workers. Who’dathunk?
      Makes you wonder what other disasters “God’s” shabby workmanship has left around the city to befall people there..and apparently in any other city in Texas..

      Texas may be the most profitable state in the union per capita (I guess this helps to explain why), but this is now added to a list of reasons I have no desire to ever go there.

  5. usefulgod says:

    The city suddenly finds God when it’s wallet is in danger! Betcha can’t have a nativity scene in downtown Fort Worth and the police probably are not allowed to say Merry Christmas but when their light falls on a car, all of the sudden, it’s no longer a hate crime for the city to recognize God. Interesting and convenient, no?

  6. WR says:

    This is a case of ‘res ipsa loquitor’. A properly designed, manufactured, installed, inspected, and maintained city owned light fixture does not just fall on a car without something being wrong. But how much is the case worth? Unfortunately, in this case, the cost to forensically determine exactly what caused the fixture to fail, fall, and cause the damage outweighs the potential value of any recovery..

    1. Kauaicat says:

      I’m a structural engineer, and it appears that the connection of the lamp fixture to the pole failed. Based on the film clip, this street light is one of many similar light installations on the same road, which makes it unlikely that the failure of the light is a design flaw, but most likely improper installation. I suspect that either a bolt or bolt was either not tightened, and worked itself loose during periodic wind gusts, or may not have even been installed.

      In any case, the city is still liable IMO. While the fixture and the pole were not manufactured by the the city, the installer of the pole, either city workers or a contractor EMPLOYED by the city, is responsible for the proper attachment of the fixture to the pole. Even a half-decent lawyer would win this case quickly, because the amount of damages is comparable to 8 billing hrs for the city lawyer, i.e. one letter laying out the case would probably result in quick settlement.

  7. David Earnest says:

    Actually the last city employee to touch that lamp when it was installed is responsible. God had nothing to do with it. Really a guy named Lamer?

  8. duh_swami says:

    So sue God…he has lots of deep pockets..

    1. Kranix says:

      You could always sue his earthly representatives…

  9. bp789 says:

    To whomever wrote this article:
    “on sight”, should have been written “on site”. Look it up in a dictionary. Jeez.

    1. george says:

      bp789: It should be, “To whoever wrote this article.” Look it up in a grammar book.

      1. Sam says:

        Actually, “whoever” in this case would be the object of a preposition (to), and therefore would be “whomever.” Look it up in a grammar book

  10. Mack Hall says:

    So is this a lamp unto thy feet?

    1. DudeZXT says:

      No. It’s a lamp unto thy trunk.

  11. Rascal69 says:

    Since the City of Fort Worth has acknowledged the existence of God, I guess they will have to replace the copy of the Ten Commandments at the courthouse and set up the Nativity Scene in preparation for Christmas. You can’t have it both ways, either they believe in him or they don’t. Since they invoke him as a way to blame someone other than themselves, I guess they have to accept the consequences.

    1. DaveAgain says:

      I remember those, and I’m halfway across the coutnry. Sounds like the state wants to have its cake and eat it, too. I think the pastor shoul dhave escalated this case. For him, it was a Hyundai, but the next person might just be a bicyclist, or a kid walking down the sidewalk.

      If the city and its workers figure they aren’t liable if they aren’t present, there is no incentive to safe repairs. Just another avenue to the slippery slope to poor quality that the whole coultry is sprinting toward.

  12. Marcus Allen says:

    Thank you Fort Worth for Acknowledging the existence of the Lord especially at this glorious time of year when we all seek guidance and comfort in the hearts and souls of all men and women.

    1. Darold Boucher says:

      Amen brother Marcus

    2. Kranix says:

      Yeah, that whole “praying for rain” thing you guys did a few months ago was quite effective.

      Of course it didn’t rain until an atheist held a concert…

  13. BigBoa says:

    But there IS no God…..

    Just ask them……

    Sheer hypocrisy. This should be considered VERY offensive by all of the nations atheists. Perhaps THEY will take up a collection to fix the guy’s car? Kind of odd that THEY aren’t “occupying” the city hall, demanding that it pay……

    1. George Whitefield says:

      Im an atheist. Often a very rabid one. ‘Acts of God’ doesn’t offend me. It’s been listed on virtually all of my leases and is easy to understand. I take it to mean ‘shyt happens, get over it.’ Preferably, the government wouldn’t use the term. There are after all plenty of religions who do not acknowledge a ‘God,’ and using the term establishes a preference for one religion, or group of religions, over others. The state has its liability guidelines, as briefly mentioned in the article. The court system might be the best way to determine liability, to protect the tax payers who created and fund the government.

      1. John Moser says:

        Your ability to reason is almost as good as your grammar. It’s called punctuation, George. It exists for a reason.

      2. Darold Boucher says:

        Finally an atheist with a sense of humor. George you brought a little light into my world today. I’ll say a prayer for you at church on Sunday.

      3. Tom says:

        George, The Liberal Elite “Atheist”. If you hold your nose any higher, you may fall over. There is no such person as a true atheist. The term, atheist, means “without god”. I would suspect that you have a god in your life. From the tone of your responses, I would guess you are your own god. Perhaps you worship money, or your therapist or your dog. Whatever your god may be, there is something in your life that you hold higher than your own opinion. The good news is that someday, you will learn that there actually is a God of the universe that loves you and tried to show you his truth…but your self-righteous attitude wouldn’t let you see past your nose.

      4. Mary says:

        Tom, I don’t think you could have sounded any more condescending and judgmental there. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. Well done, sir.

  14. Brandon says:

    Nickle and dime us all with fines for victimless traffic “crimes,” but use any loophole they can to use some of that money to help us out when it’s clear they should.

  15. John Villanueva says:

    Lack of maintenance is now an act of God.

    Good to know. Guess I don’t have to change the oil in my car, change the AC filter, etc…

    1. Sammie Jo says:

      Did God install that light? If he did, then it’s his fault for not properly installing it and maintaining it.
      The city should have insurance to cover this, more money will be wasted in court than fixing the man’s car.

  16. Crunchin' Clunkers says:

    Hyundai Sonata?

    If it was totaled, the traffic light did him a favor.

    1. Spanky says:

      They’re actually pretty good cars. The Koreans are getting the act together in terms of auto manufacturing.

      Maybe you remember how bad Japanese cars were in the 60s and 70s? They were horrible! Now, they are higher quality than US- made cars. The Koreans learned a lot from the Japanese.

  17. Dano says:

    I guess since the city is acting like they are God, therefore in God’s place, then God should pay up.

  18. SmarterThanLibs says:

    An “act of god” has nothing to do with bad workmanship and the lack of proper maintenance. Get a lawyer and sue the city. I am SURE the city lawyers are interpreting the “act of God” clause incorrectly to protect their rears.

    1. george says:

      That’s probably correct. Government officials often view common citizens as idiots — and only idiots allow them to get away with it.

  19. HansJurgen says:

    OK, where are the libs and the atheist since this is forcing “God” on this man. But, then that’s a typical, hypocritical lib mindset. It was “God’s ” fault or maybe “Bush’s” fault – no taking responsibility for their liberal mistakes. This man should sue the city for using religion or even saying “God” since that is suppose to be against separation of Church and State.

  20. dano says:

    I’m sure that if the pastor files the claim with his insurance company and explains to the the city’s response and why he was forced to file the claim then insurance company will pay to have his car fixed, and the insurance company have plenty of lawyers to retract their losses from the city, therefore, relieving the pastor of attorney fees.

    1. DaveAgain says:

      You’re assuming the insurance company won’t hide behind the very same excuse. After all, the city will have set the precedent in the case for them to fall onto. Most property insurance contracts also exclude “Acts of God”, among other things. If the city says it was an act of God, and the pastor leaves it at that, the insurance company will probably claim the very same thing, based on the city’s determination.

      If the insurance company did pay off, then that only serves to transfer the city’s negligence onto private citizens who pay the insurance premiums. It would be very interesting to hear the city’s explanation of how God caused the light fixture to fall.

  21. tramky says:

    The tsunami in Japan was an act of God. A poorly-maintained streetlight in Fort Worth is NOT! Take this to court and we’ll see what a jury finds.

    The clergyman is a taxpayer, so who, exactly, is this ‘act of God’ ruling intended to protect? Oh, yeah, right. The taxpayer. Makes perfect sense.

    There ARE idiots in Texas.

  22. David says:

    Why is it that the only time the state mentions God is when they want to claim something is not their fault? I guess they are taking cue from their governor who only mentions God when he wants to run for president.

  23. george says:

    Lotsa luck with THAT argument. The city is liable for the damage unless the damage was beyond human power to cause, prevent, or control. Most likely the streetlight fell because the city was lax in its inspections and maintenance of the structure and others like it. It could even be that the structure was defective at the time it was installed. The car owner should file suit — definitely!

  24. Ryan Mouk says:

    I rule that the City of Fort Worth is run by a group of cheap moronic holes that are using the term “Act of God” so they dont have to fork over any money to pay for the damages caused by the failure to upkeep their town.

    1. george says:

      Case affirmed.

  25. Osamas Pajamas says:

    I’m an atheist — but I have no problem with kids starting the school day with prayer. I’m in charge of my brain — not theirs. I smell hypocrisy here. Does the city of Ft Worth outlaw school prayer or otherwise enforce a prohibition on school prayer? And then call this incident “an act of God?” Duh?

  26. David says:

    The nest time I get stopped for allegedly not wearing my seat belt I will tell the officer, “It was an act of God that the belt became unbuckled just before you saw me.” He should let me go, right?

  27. TLC says:

    If the city wants to “Protect the Taxpayers” then no more money should go towards helping illegal aliens.

    1. Spanky says:

      “no more money should go towards helping illegal aliens.”

      But then how else could Dem politicians woo Hispanic voters?

  28. Osamas Pajamas says:

    You have to remember that the first duty of government is to suck money out of the taxpayers to pay for the fat mouths, fat salaries, fat bonuses, fat benefits, fat COLAs, and fat pensions of the bloodsucking, tax-eating so-called “public servants.” That covers one voting bloc — and then the next voting bloc is the bloodsucking tax-eaters who are not politicians, bureaucrats, or government employees.

  29. Gordon says:

    Apparently this reporter and the copy editor (if they still exist) don’t know that, when you refer to God, you’re supposed to say ”He”.

  30. Drake says:

    Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? Ignore/deny God until you need him, right?

  31. firstpoppa says:

    And here I thought the GOVERNMENT was SEPARATE from GOD. Unless it’s convenient.

  32. Mike says:

    So if I have my tax money all set to be sent to the city and a gust wind comes along and blows it down the sewer can I claim a free pass on paying taxes cause my money was taken by an act of God?

  33. Huntingmoose says:

    So if something falls off a roof, the owner in not liable either? But stumbling on a crack in the sidewalk, who ever house is nearvis responsible?

  34. Dave Shaffer says:

    If it’s an “act of god”, then make “god” pay for it.

  35. kcsparky says:

    God had nothing to do with this, nor the argument of separation of church and state. This was just pure and simple faulty instillation and poor workmenship. The end of the support arm is a clean factory cut and there is no visual evidence of any form ot fixture clamping device being secured (telltail scarring) and vibrating loose. If Texas is hamstrung the way Washington is by only being allowed to have union workiers preform any and all government/ county/city generated work, I am not surprised in the least.

    1. george says:

      I think you’re onto something here. The faulty streetlight was probably installed either before noon on a Monday or after 1 p.m. on a Friday. Just like the last GM car I ever bought.

  36. Thomas Muir says:

    I’m sure his insurance company will have something to say on the matter.

    At least he didn’t run his car up a telephone pole or something

  37. David Eleazer says:

    Everyone here and the author are “WRONG” !!!
    You know damn well it was Bush’s fault !!!
    Obama said so !

    1. Spanky says:

      Surely the Tea Party and Reagan are somehow responsible, too!

  38. Dave says:

    I don’t see the problem preacher. If it’s a God act, then get Him to pay for it. Doesn’t He have houses of Gold?

    I wish you the best of luck with Him, and the city of Fort Worth, in getting your car fixed. Ain’t neither one gonna pony up for the bill.

  39. David B says:

    So if God exists can a student mention God at say a graduation? Or in a pre-football game prayer?

  40. Spanky says:

    Not worth it so sue God. He has God as his defense attorney.

  41. John Moser says:

    So if the government sells a bunch of rifles and machine guns to a Mexican crime syndicate, and 300 people die, the government isn’t responsible because they didn’t pull the trigger. Hmmm…

    1. george says:

      Since Obama seems to see himself as The Chosen One, as do many of those who voted for him, I’d say yes, Fast & Furious was certainly an Act of God.

  42. Rick O'Shay says:

    Where’s the ACLU? A city recognizing the existence of G*D must be sued and put in it’s place.

  43. TexanPatriot says:

    Oh, yeah, they SUPPORT God when it’s convenient for them to do so. Geez, did God guide the hands of the lazy city employee who maintained that light? Did God speak to him to come off the pole now, my son? Uh, no.

  44. El gato says:

    I wonder when God put the street lights up? Did he forget to tighten the bolts? The City is full of morons!

  45. jenny smith says:

    I might agree if the light wasn’t put up by what was most lightly an unskilled, uncaring union worker.And I guess if I knew what the man was doing before the the fell I might be able to attribute the light falling to a message from God!

  46. Carl says:

    Looks like this is the only acceptable way that God is allowed / allowed to be mentioned in/by Government.

  47. Rico says:

    What if he lost control of his car and plowed through the front doors of city hall? “Act of god”, not my fault.

  48. Karl says:

    The City is clearly liable for negligence, in failing to maintaining this fixture in safe working condition. Everything is an act of God for those who believe. He is said to have created the laws of cause and effect which accounts for everything that happens.
    Not everyone believes in God and no physical proof of him existence. How can you blame someone who does not exist? Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, the Devil. Come on City. OWN IT.

  49. masterleemochow says:

    Fun they only time they Talk about God is when they don’t want to pay up!!!

  50. Raycmr says:

    Were the bolts made in China? Were they high strenght bolts? Were they counterfeit? Were they corroded/ cracked and over due for inspection? Are other light poles in immenient danger of falling on people not just cars? Are there class action lawsuits or other lawsuits against the manufacturer? Did anyone save the bolts for evidence and a strenght of material test run by an independent lab.

  51. Michael says:

    You can’t pray in school for Divine help, but the city can blame God when something bad happens?

  52. Andy says:

    Jeez, George, seriously? Judicial Review is nowhere in the Federalist papers, nor is it in the US Constitution. It was established by the court itself, in Marbury v. Madison. The establishment clause very clearly prohibits the federal government from establishing an official religion. The words are clear, if you bother to read them.

    1. george says:

      Marbury v. Madison — one of the most blatant power-grabs ever pulled off. The swift response should have been a Constitutional amendment nullifying the decision. Would have saved this country from all kinds of judicial tyranny and nonsense, including the outrageous (but oh so creative) decisions of the Warren Court.

  53. Brian says:

    This sounds like a clear case for application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

  54. noname says:

    What, now all of you are against God being incorporated in the government. Make up your mind, do you want the government to be a good Christian government and accept and celebrate the existence of God, or do you want more of this secular heathen government we have now?

  55. Tom says:

    I agree with you.

    BTW, the city did not “rule” anything. The city is simply saying, as part of a non-judicial claims process, that it is not liable. Similarly, people often treat the decision of an insurance adjuster as if it were a court decision on liability. It is the equivalent of someone saying, “I don’t owe you a cent.”

    There can be a court case after this, but how many people want to spend thousands on a lawyer if the stakes are not that high?

    1. george says:

      In a situation this outrageous, there are probably Texas attorneys out there who will take the case pro bono. (Hint, hint.)

  56. John says:

    An act of God is an earthquake, lightning strike, tornado, hurricane, etc. Calling an act of negligence an act of God is saying that God is supposed to make sure that the bolts are tight. No fly city of FW!
    John, Alvarado TX

  57. jtirk says:

    it was a rice burner. who cares

  58. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    Sounds more like like Act Of Incompetent IBEW Labor. Pay up, Mr. Mayor.

  59. Harry says:

    Where is the ACLU. clearly if they are invoking the Dieity then they are endorsing a religion. After all there are those who don’t acknowledge the existance of a Dieity.

  60. Donny says:

    Ron Paul 2012.

  61. Seabastian Woof says:

    Holy Moley!
    Now they’re going from Blame Bush to Blame God.
    In this era of irresponsibility: WE BLAME SOMEONE ELSE
    for OUR mistakes and OUR stupidity.

  62. Dan C says:

    “An act of GOD??” Isn’t that against the concept of “separation of church and state”.

  63. gfugfyut says:

    The ‘Act of God’ defense , I believe, only applies to a natural disaster, not to poor maintenance or equipment. Otherwise, anytime you r in an accident you could claim that it was an ‘Act of God’. Time to get a lawyer, or go to small claims.

  64. Chaim says:

    CHAIM
    God does not own the lamp. God did not provide the lamp. God did not install the lamp. The City collects taxes from citizens to buy, install and provide illumination to the citizens. Faulty workmanship is not God’s fault because God had nothing to do with the lamp.
    Religious beliefs are separate from the operation of a city. Even Atheists realize that this is faulty reasoning.
    The city does not collect taxes from God. God had nothing to do with it. God does not operate the city and God was not elected by the citizens to run the city. Do not re-elect the mayor. Get a new responsible Mayor.
    The city is responsible for the damage to the vehicle.

  65. realproblem says:

    Actually George, what bothers me is PC hypocrites like you allowing Islam to become the de facto government-approved religion through your selective application of this so-called separation of church and state.

  66. moreco2 says:

    So what will the insurance cos. do when the libs take God out of the culture. Will they have a provision for “bad luck”? It was bad luck your house got struck by lightening so we won’t pay.

  67. CJNormal says:

    Ecclesiastes 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race [is] not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

  68. Jonathan Kent says:

    Breaking news: City of Fort Worth and religious nutjobs are IDIOTS>

  69. Jonathan Kent says:

    RELIGION = MIND CONTROL FOR THE STUPID AMONG US.

  70. Ricardoh says:

    All this BS isn’t getting the car fixed. Go to the newspaper with the name of the person who told you it was an act of God or take the city to small claims court.

  71. Johnny Cowan says:

    It’s right thee in the man’s name. Lame.

  72. Russell says:

    If i were on the city council, I would just pay up. I’ll bet these city officials have no problem giving handouts to themselves and people who are here illegally. But to state what had happened as an act of God appears to be an excuse from a bunch of cheep skates! (Geeezzzz!)

  73. notalawyer says:

    Act of god my ass, if the pole is proven to have failed because the city hasn’t maintained the pole or it’s foundations in accordance with the manufacturers specifications, then the city is liable for damage through pure neglect. Take it to small claims court and recover your costs.

  74. Sam says:

    Legally, however, the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the city. Employers are ordinarily responsible for the negligence of their employees, but for government agencies, sovereign immunity protects them from negligence. Gross negligence, recklessness, knowledge, or intention is required for them to be liable, and this looks like a case of negligence

Comments are closed.

More From CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Drip Pan: CBS Local App
Drip Pan: Weather App
Drip Pan: Video Player

Listen Live