CTA Accidents

[YoungBusLover]

8 hours ago, Busjack said:

Sure CTA can sue, and the driver will probably be joined in any litigation as a necessary party, but unless he has sufficient liability insurance,  it won't matter.

How many times do I have to repeat that the warranty only covers manufacturer's defects,  not accidental damage? Hyundai will not pay if you drive your car into an L pillar,  unless the collision radar system didn't work as represented. 

And to repeat another point--why is it more important to the bus operator community that a bus can be repaired than one of your colleagues is lying in critical condition in [presumably] Stroger Hospital? I really want to know. 

 

 

I'm just repeating what I've been told from the mechanics chief the buses are under warranty regarding everything not just miscellaneous parts from defects. I bring up the warranty aspect due to the age and severity of the bus itself. Unless the CTA believes the bus is a total loss while under warranty they'll keep it around until the litigation process has completed to then determine what direction they want to go. In regards to your second point about us fellow operators worrying about our fellow co workers, I have been given very little info on the conditions of both operators at this time other than what I could dissect from scanner traffic. I can only speak for myself but rest assure everyone at K and the rest of the system is praying and send nothing but well wishes for a speedy recovery for everyone involved in that accident. 

[Busjack]

26 minutes ago, YoungBusLover said:

'm just repeating what I've been told from the mechanics chief the buses are under warranty regarding everything not just miscellaneous parts from defects. I bring up the warranty aspect due to the age and severity of the bus itself. Unless the CTA believes the bus is a total loss while under warranty they'll keep it around until the litigation process has completed to then determine what direction they want to go.

I take that a just that if the bus is under 12 years old, they'll consider whether to fix it. There's a congruity between the FTA 12 year service life and the 12 year structural warranty, but the result is that transit authorities keep buses, even wrecks, on the roster 12 years. The only time the 12-year structural warranty came up was with the NABIs, which were found within 6 years to be structurally defective, but there the remedy was not repairing the buses, but NABI taking an approximately $50 million hit in the pocketbook.

[Shannon tahoeppv]

On 5/28/2026 at 10:46 PM, Javi75 said:

In this scenario does CTA make a claim against the driver of the sedan, can cta sue someone for damage to CTA property?

I know

[Bus1883]

On 5/29/2026 at 8:49 AM, YoungBusLover said:

Once the litigation process has concluded we probably will see #8912 again at some point, the bus is still under warranty as of right now. #1192 will get retired due to it's age, the litigation timeline and the overall damage sustained. It's a shame a lot of these recent #8350s haven't even hit two years old yet and they've had major accidents already. 

8506,8509,8572,8594,8792,8912 so far 

[Bus1517]

#1162 was involved in a crash by a stolen car just today on the 29 state

[Bus1517]

1209 was ALSO involved in the same crash on the 21 Cermak