Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

[VVMattVV]

I can maybe see sueing the bar (despite their attempts to get him a cab), but to try and sue the tow truck driver and especially the driver of the stalled car is ridiculous.

 

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

 

Perhaps, but I see no negligence in this circumstance.

 

well, if a guy on the internet who read a couple articles about it doesn't see any negligence then why even have a trial?

 

im sure abuck12345 is an experienced lawyer on the other hand, right?

 

since you want to be a dick about it, i graduated from law school two weeks ago.

 

A lawyer who has never practice law - the most dangerous type there is.

 

Huh?

[kujay]

Depends on whether Missouri is a comparative or contributory negligence state and who is most to blame, etc., and up to what percentage of the blame each party will be attributed.

 

Driving drunk is a huge assumption of risk and is overwhelming negligence.

 

they're pure comparative negligence. and they don't have a dram shop act.

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but judging by this post I assume what I'm going to say hasn't yet been said.

 

We here in MO are a pure comparative negligence state. That's right. But we also do have a dram shop act. Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.053.

 

My understanding of subsection (4) of that statute is that a person over 21 years old cannot sue an establishment for his own injuries arising from them overserving him. Because the wrongful death action is derivative, if Josh wouldn't have been able to sue, neither can his father.

 

That is why Dean Hancock's Petition alleges, rather laughably, that Hancock's intoxication was "involuntary." His lawyers should know better. In this context "involuntary" clearly means something like roofies or more literally the (I would think) rare instance where someone is being physically forced to drink.

 

Mr. Hancock's attorneys are definitely reaching here. I doubt they would get past summary judgment against Shannon's on the basis of the above, and as to the tow truck driver and the other poor guy, their claims are outrageous. There is so much comparative fault here I can't believe any jury would give him a dime.

 

But, you know, it might come down to settling for nuisance value. Other than getting his picture in the paper, I can't believe that was enough to convince the rather experienced St. Louis lawyer who signed on to take this case.

[abuck1220]

Depends on whether Missouri is a comparative or contributory negligence state and who is most to blame, etc., and up to what percentage of the blame each party will be attributed.

 

Driving drunk is a huge assumption of risk and is overwhelming negligence.

 

they're pure comparative negligence. and they don't have a dram shop act.

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but judging by this post I assume what I'm going to say hasn't yet been said.

 

We here in MO are a pure comparative negligence state. That's right. But we also do have a dram shop act. Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.053.

 

My understanding of subsection (4) of that statute is that a person over 21 years old cannot sue an establishment for his own injuries arising from them overserving him. Because the wrongful death action is derivative, if Josh wouldn't have been able to sue, neither can his father.

 

 

based on the part you mentioned and the following, i took it to mean they didn't have one...

 

Since the repeal of the Missouri Dram Shop Act in 1934 (Laws of 1933-34, extra session, page 77), it has been and continues to be the policy of this state to follow the common law of England, as declared in section 1.010, RSMo, to prohibit dram shop liability and to follow the common law rule that furnishing alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons.

[The Voice of Reason]

I can maybe see sueing the bar (despite their attempts to get him a cab), but to try and sue the tow truck driver and especially the driver of the stalled car is ridiculous.

 

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

 

Perhaps, but I see no negligence in this circumstance.

 

well, if a guy on the internet who read a couple articles about it doesn't see any negligence then why even have a trial?

 

im sure abuck12345 is an experienced lawyer on the other hand, right?

 

since you want to be a dick about it, i graduated from law school two weeks ago.

 

A lawyer who has never practice law - the most dangerous type there is.

 

Huh?

 

Think they know everything but have no practical legal experience. There is a lot more to the practice of law than what you learn in a law book.

[abuck1220]

I can maybe see sueing the bar (despite their attempts to get him a cab), but to try and sue the tow truck driver and especially the driver of the stalled car is ridiculous.

 

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

 

Perhaps, but I see no negligence in this circumstance.

 

well, if a guy on the internet who read a couple articles about it doesn't see any negligence then why even have a trial?

 

im sure abuck12345 is an experienced lawyer on the other hand, right?

 

since you want to be a dick about it, i graduated from law school two weeks ago.

 

A lawyer who has never practice law - the most dangerous type there is.

 

Huh?

 

Think they know everything but have no practical legal experience. There is a lot more to the practice of law than what you learn in a law book.

 

that's a pretty idiotic thing to say. you don't know me at all, and i am far from thinking i know everything.

 

what did i say that wasn't accurate or what about this case is so beyond my simple mind?

[OleMissCub]

Think they know everything but have no practical legal experience. There is a lot more to the practice of law than what you learn in a law book.

 

And there are lawyers who think otherwise??

 

Of course experience is everything. Who wouldn't think that?

[The Voice of Reason]

I can maybe see sueing the bar (despite their attempts to get him a cab), but to try and sue the tow truck driver and especially the driver of the stalled car is ridiculous.

 

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

 

Perhaps, but I see no negligence in this circumstance.

 

well, if a guy on the internet who read a couple articles about it doesn't see any negligence then why even have a trial?

 

im sure abuck12345 is an experienced lawyer on the other hand, right?

 

since you want to be a dick about it, i graduated from law school two weeks ago.

 

A lawyer who has never practice law - the most dangerous type there is.

 

Huh?

 

Think they know everything but have no practical legal experience. There is a lot more to the practice of law than what you learn in a law book.

 

that's a pretty idiotic thing to say. you don't know me at all, and i am far from thinking i know everything.

 

what did i say that wasn't accurate or what about this case is so beyond my simple mind?

 

Dude - relax, I was just pulling your chain. If you are going to start practicing law, you better get used to it. It's called being a Junior Associate.

[Soriano12]

l

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-hancock-lawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns

 

Wow...that article was just sad

 

"It's understood that for the entire 3 1/2 hours that Josh Hancock was there that he was handed drinks," Keith Kantack, a lawyer for Dean Hancock, said. "It's our understanding that from the moment Josh Hancock entered Mike Shannon's that night that he was never without a drink."

 

 

Yes poor, Josh, they just stuffed the booze down his throat....hey Dean, did you still wipe your sons ass?!?! Pathetic. Boo freakin hoo.

[davearm]

I haven't read this whole thread, but judging by this post I assume what I'm going to say hasn't yet been said.

 

We here in MO are a pure comparative negligence state. That's right. But we also do have a dram shop act. Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.053.

 

My understanding of subsection (4) of that statute is that a person over 21 years old cannot sue an establishment for his own injuries arising from them overserving him. Because the wrongful death action is derivative, if Josh wouldn't have been able to sue, neither can his father.

 

That is why Dean Hancock's Petition alleges, rather laughably, that Hancock's intoxication was "involuntary." His lawyers should know better. In this context "involuntary" clearly means something like roofies or more literally the (I would think) rare instance where someone is being physically forced to drink.

 

Mr. Hancock's attorneys are definitely reaching here. I doubt they would get past summary judgment against Shannon's on the basis of the above, and as to the tow truck driver and the other poor guy, their claims are outrageous. There is so much comparative fault here I can't believe any jury would give him a dime.

 

But, you know, it might come down to settling for nuisance value. Other than getting his picture in the paper, I can't believe that was enough to convince the rather experienced St. Louis lawyer who signed on to take this case.

FWIW, googling for "Missouri alcohol liability" uncovered two articles that seem to contradict your information.

 

The pertinent portions:

 

The 2002 Missouri law bans liquor-liability lawsuits against businesses except when there is clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that the buyer was underage or visibly intoxicated. That law was considered an improvement on a previous state law that required a criminal conviction for serving a minor or intoxicated person before a liability lawsuit could be filed; the state Supreme Court ruled that the previous law was unconstitutional.

http://www.4therapy.com/consumer/life_topics/article/8927/533/Missouri+Court+Ponders+Alcohol+Liability+of+Convenience+Stores

 

Missouri's alcohol-liability law, which allows lawsuits against bars and restaurants but not convenience stores and grocery stores, is not unconstitutional, the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled.

 

The Associated Press reported Nov. 7 that the high court rejected an appeal by a St. Louis woman who wanted to sue a convenience store that sold beer to her 20-year-old son the night before he died in an auto crash. The court said that the state liability law, which only allows lawsuits against those who sell alcohol by the drink or for onsite consumption, did not draw an unconstitutional distinction between alcohol outlets.

 

The Supreme Court said that there were several legitimate rationales for the way the law was written, including the fact that bartenders have more opportunity to judge whether a customer is drunk and that sellers of packaged alcohol have no control over how it is used once customers leave the store.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/mo-court-rules-convenience.html

[SouthSideRyan]

Missouri Revised Statutes

 

537.053.

 

2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

 

3. For purposes of this section, a person is "visibly intoxicated" when inebriated to such an extent that the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction. A person's blood alcohol content does not constitute prima facie evidence to establish that a person is visibly intoxicated within the meaning of this section, but may be admissible as relevant evidence of the person's intoxication.

 

4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to provide a right of recovery to a person who suffers injury or death proximately caused by the person's voluntary intoxication unless the person is under the age of twenty-one years. No person over the age of twenty-one years or their dependents, personal representative, and heirs may assert a claim for damages for personal injury or death against a seller of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises arising out of the person's voluntary intoxication.

 

Which brings it all back to saying Hancock was involuntarily intoxicated. Which is insane.

[XZero771679666304]

 

 

Yes poor, Josh, they just stuffed the booze down his throat....hey Dean, did you still wipe your sons ass?!?! Pathetic. Boo freakin hoo.

 

This is the way our society has become. No one is ever responsible for anything, since some sickness, illness or negligence of another (who in turn has some sickness/other to blame) is always to blame for everything.

[Soriano12]

 

 

Yes poor, Josh, they just stuffed the booze down his throat....hey Dean, did you still wipe your sons ass?!?! Pathetic. Boo freakin hoo.

 

This is the way our society has become. No one is ever responsible for anything, since some sickness, illness or negligence of another (who in turn has some sickness/other to blame) is always to blame for everything.

 

I feel for the Teachers in America. They don't get paid nearly enough and constantly here this on a day to day basis from Parents. Nothing is ever the child/parent's fault. Always blame the school/teachers.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dean Hancock said in a statement that the "facts and circumstances" of Josh's death "have caused great pain to all of Josh's family." As administrator of his son's estate, Dean Hancock said he has an obligation to represent the family on all issues, "including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death."

 

Maybe Dean should name himself and his wife in the suit for not teaching their son how to drink and conduct himself responsibly. It seems that action may have the greatest contribution in his son's untimely death.

[XZero771679666304]

Which brings it all back to saying Hancock was involuntarily intoxicated. Which is insane.

 

It's an old problem, people acting like being drunk is an excuse for anything, or a mysterious condition.

 

You put the booze in your mouth and swallowed it. You are 100% responsible for anything bad that happens as a consequence. Not the bartender, server, brewer or distillery, you, 100%.

[abuck1220]

I haven't read this whole thread, but judging by this post I assume what I'm going to say hasn't yet been said.

 

We here in MO are a pure comparative negligence state. That's right. But we also do have a dram shop act. Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.053.

 

My understanding of subsection (4) of that statute is that a person over 21 years old cannot sue an establishment for his own injuries arising from them overserving him. Because the wrongful death action is derivative, if Josh wouldn't have been able to sue, neither can his father.

 

That is why Dean Hancock's Petition alleges, rather laughably, that Hancock's intoxication was "involuntary." His lawyers should know better. In this context "involuntary" clearly means something like roofies or more literally the (I would think) rare instance where someone is being physically forced to drink.

 

Mr. Hancock's attorneys are definitely reaching here. I doubt they would get past summary judgment against Shannon's on the basis of the above, and as to the tow truck driver and the other poor guy, their claims are outrageous. There is so much comparative fault here I can't believe any jury would give him a dime.

 

But, you know, it might come down to settling for nuisance value. Other than getting his picture in the paper, I can't believe that was enough to convince the rather experienced St. Louis lawyer who signed on to take this case.

FWIW, googling for "Missouri alcohol liability" uncovered two articles that seem to contradict your information.

 

The pertinent portions:

 

The 2002 Missouri law bans liquor-liability lawsuits against businesses except when there is clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that the buyer was underage or visibly intoxicated. That law was considered an improvement on a previous state law that required a criminal conviction for serving a minor or intoxicated person before a liability lawsuit could be filed; the state Supreme Court ruled that the previous law was unconstitutional.

http://www.4therapy.com/consumer/life_topics/article/8927/533/Missouri+Court+Ponders+Alcohol+Liability+of+Convenience+Stores

 

Missouri's alcohol-liability law, which allows lawsuits against bars and restaurants but not convenience stores and grocery stores, is not unconstitutional, the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled.

 

The Associated Press reported Nov. 7 that the high court rejected an appeal by a St. Louis woman who wanted to sue a convenience store that sold beer to her 20-year-old son the night before he died in an auto crash. The court said that the state liability law, which only allows lawsuits against those who sell alcohol by the drink or for onsite consumption, did not draw an unconstitutional distinction between alcohol outlets.

 

The Supreme Court said that there were several legitimate rationales for the way the law was written, including the fact that bartenders have more opportunity to judge whether a customer is drunk and that sellers of packaged alcohol have no control over how it is used once customers leave the store.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/mo-court-rules-convenience.html

 

odd. the language of the statute makes it seem like you couldn't sue a bar.

[jjgman21]

But I'm not a lawyer trying to drum up business.

 

because lord knows bringing frivilous lawsuits is such an ease way to become rich....no, wait, upon further review, it's a quick way to go bankrupt and get disbarred.

[SouthSideRyan]

odd. the language of the statute makes it seem like you couldn't sue a bar.

 

Except in the case where the buyer was knowingly underage (inapplicable) or involuntarily drunk(roofied by an employee of the bar?) It's why Hancock is forced to include the ridiculous involuntarily drunk part, and why his case holds no water.

[jjgman21]

I think what is disheartening most of all about this discussion is the affirmation of how well the relentless PR campaign by the insurance and medical industries has worked.

[soccer10k]

If he was able to sue them for that every drunk who even gets in a fender bender could by that logic sue the bar they just drank at.

 

they can

Thats incredibly sad.

 

It might sound cold but I really hope that father doesn't get a cent.

How is that incredibly sad?

 

Bars/bartenders are not supposed to overserve folks precisely so that situations like this can be avoided.

 

Yes, because bartenders know everybody's tolerance and BAC and should be expected to stop serving somebody right when they're over the legal limit. While we're at it, let's install breathalyzers in every bar test everybody's BAC before they're allowed to order a drink. Just because a guy is drunk and over the limit doesn't mean a bartender can tell that the guy is.

 

EDIT (just so I don't come off sounding like a complete dick): I do agree to a point that bars and bartenders should be held liable. If a guy is falling over and slurring and is visibly drunk, that is one thing, and then you shouldn't serve them. But with a lot of drinkers, especially some experienced ones, it is hard to tell when somebody is over the legal limit.

Edited May 25, 2007 by soccer10k

[cubfan1955]

But I'm not a lawyer trying to drum up business.

 

because lord knows bringing frivilous lawsuits is such an ease way to become rich....no, wait, upon further review, it's a quick way to go bankrupt and get disbarred.

Right...there is no such thing as ambulance chasing lawyers.

[cubfan1955]

I can maybe see sueing the bar (despite their attempts to get him a cab), but to try and sue the tow truck driver and especially the driver of the stalled car is ridiculous.

 

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

 

Perhaps, but I see no negligence in this circumstance.

 

well, if a guy on the internet who read a couple articles about it doesn't see any negligence then why even have a trial?

 

im sure abuck12345 is an experienced lawyer on the other hand, right?

 

since you want to be a dick about it, i graduated from law school two weeks ago.

LOL In other words...you have no experience at all.

[XZero771679666304]

If he was able to sue them for that every drunk who even gets in a fender bender could by that logic sue the bar they just drank at.

 

they can

Thats incredibly sad.

 

It might sound cold but I really hope that father doesn't get a cent.

How is that incredibly sad?

 

Bars/bartenders are not supposed to overserve folks precisely so that situations like this can be avoided.

 

Yes, because bartenders know everybody's tolerance and BAC and should be expected to stop serving somebody right when they're over the legal limit. While we're at it, let's install breathalyzers in every bar test everybody's BAC before they're allowed to order a drink. Just because a guy is drunk and over the limit doesn't mean a bartender can tell that the guy is.

 

EDIT (just so I don't come off sounding like a complete dick): I do agree to a point that bars and bartenders should be held liable. If a guy is falling over and slurring and is visibly drunk, that is one thing, and then you shouldn't serve them. But with a lot of drinkers, especially some experienced ones, it is hard to tell when somebody is over the legal limit.

 

It is common sense not to serve someone who is stumbling drunk. However, some people seem to think that you have to be stumbling drunk to be dangerous. All a person has to have is a buzz or even less to have their driving ability impaired to the point of being a danger to others. I am an ex-bartender, and can verify that it is quite hard to tell who has had too much. It's easy to tell who's had WAY too much, but most people can be far too drunk to drive without falling off of barstools or stumbling around and slurring their speech. And on a busy night when a bar is full, you can't expect a server to babysit every patron. And it is true, the really experienced drinkers, those that wear their drunkenness well and have fooled themselves into thinking they have control or measure over it that are the most dangerous of all.

 

And then there those heroes who think their tolerance is higher so they can have a higher BAC than another person and be no less impaired. It's all a bunch of BS. Personally, I think a lot of people like to debate this so they can convince themselves that they are responsible, that their drinking doesn't cross the line, and that if it does, there will someone else to blame. It is all a way to justify behaviors that they themselves feel some uncertainty over.

 

The bottom line is that as soon as a person decides to go out and drink, they have begun a chain of events that they and they alone bear the responsibility for. It the god given right of no one to be able to drink at all and drive. If a person wants to be assure that they won't be convicted of DUI, they should have zero drinks. Any consumption before driving is a chance taken.

 

 

I am not some straightedge teetotaler, but I don't drive after I drink. If you can't get a sober DD, drink at home. If a person drinks and drives, they deserve whatever bad happens to them.

 

It's the people they might kill that don't deserve it.

[TruffleShuffle]

LOL In other words...you have no experience at all.

 

bad news pal - to get an advanced degree in any subject, you have to know a hell of a lot (i.e., a lot more than he's shown in this thread). In fact, I knew a lot more about cloud physics, fluid dynamics and the equations of meteorology five years ago than I do now as a professional meteorologist.

[TruffleShuffle]

 

 

Yes poor, Josh, they just stuffed the booze down his throat....hey Dean, did you still wipe your sons ass?!?! Pathetic. Boo freakin hoo.

 

This is the way our society has become. No one is ever responsible for anything, since some sickness, illness or negligence of another (who in turn has some sickness/other to blame) is always to blame for everything.

 

I feel for the Teachers in America. They don't get paid nearly enough and constantly here this on a day to day basis from Parents. Nothing is ever the child/parent's fault. Always blame the school/teachers.

 

i do blame the teachers in america for that mistake

[CUBZ99]

I can maybe see sueing the bar (despite their attempts to get him a cab), but to try and sue the tow truck driver and especially the driver of the stalled car is ridiculous.

 

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

 

Perhaps, but I see no negligence in this circumstance.

 

well, if a guy on the internet who read a couple articles about it doesn't see any negligence then why even have a trial?

 

im sure abuck12345 is an experienced lawyer on the other hand, right?

 

since you want to be a dick about it, i graduated from law school two weeks ago.

LOL In other words...you have no experience at all.

 

Congrats on your graduation ABuck. Good luck on the BAR.