Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

kujay · May 25, 2007

Exactly. Subsection (4) kills his case against Shannon's, in my opinion. Unless he were able to get some traction on this "involuntary intoxication" argument, which I agree is a joke.

I keep hearing down here that of all the defendants, Shannon's is the most likely to get hit with a judgment here. Not so. It will be much harder for the tow truck driver to prove he followed protocol, etc., than it will be for Shannon's to get summary judgment based on this statute. It's pretty clear.

Brendan · May 25, 2007

i completely agree with that sentiment. the smartest i've ever been was the day i defended my dissertation. it's been all downhill since then...

davearm · May 25, 2007

As to the bolded part, I don't think anyone's saying that.

A bartender's responsibility not to overserve is not determined by BAC or the legal limit for driving. 0.08 BAC is not the standard here -- not at all. I've got no problem with a bartender serving a person an amount of alcohol that would push him beyond (perhaps even well beyond) the legal limit for driving, *provided that* said person is not visibly drunk (slurred speech, deterioration of physical coordination, etc.).

It's a subtle but important distinction. A bartender is NOT responsible for making sure patrons can safely drive. A bartender is responsible for making sure patrons don't get completely ****faced drunk.

In this case, we know that Hancock was well over the legal limit. What we don't know is whether or not he was showing signs of being visibly drunk, and whether if he was, the bar continued to serve him anyway.

If he was just over the legal limit but not visibly drunk, then that's all on Hancock. If he was being served after being visibly drunk, then the bar/bartender ought to be in hot water too.

RynoRules · May 25, 2007

Truffle's point is well-taken. I knew a ton more about criminal law, PI, real estate, estates and trusts, and property back when I was in law school. Little practical knowledge mind you, but I knew the red-letter law.

Now I am an expert in Labor and Employment and related subject matters (contracts, administrative law, unfair competition issues, some corp. law, etc.), but have forgotten 50% of the red letter stuff in other subjects that I learned in law school.

OleMissCub · May 25, 2007

Title VII owns you!

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

I actually dispute that there are many, but that's not what I am talking about anyway. there's smarmy lawyers out there, as there are smarms in any profession, but from my experience there are alot more smarms in the insurance defense end of things as opposed to personal injury lawyers.

you implied that there are lawyers out there that will bring lawsuits when there is not a case. that statement in and of itself says to me that you don't have any actual knowledge of the legal profession, but instead base your assessment on what you've heard in popular culture.

the vast majority of personal injury lawyers work on a contingency basis. in other words, they don't make a dime if they don't win. while the client is usually responsible for costs of the suit, most of those clients have injuries that impair their ability to earn a living and don't have the out of pocket money to cover these costs. so who puts up the money to pursue the case? their lawyer does. and if that lawyer loses, rare is the instance when they collect the costs of suit from their clients. so in summary, filing a frivolous lawsuit will generally lead to the lawyer paying out, and having nothing coming in. you do the math.

what lawyers in Illinois must do when they file the lawsuits on behalf of their clients is sign a certification stating the case is has a legitimate basis in fact and law, in other words, they swear to the courts that the case is not frivolous. since most lawyers practice in limited venues, the judges and defense lawyers will get word when a lawyer is filing multiple frivolous claims. this will lead to their being reported to the bar for sanctions or disbarment.

what also must be understood is the way the case law and statutes have changed over the years to favor defendants. it has become harder and harder over the past three decades for a plaintiff to get full recovery even when his case is sound. thus, insurance companies stopped settling "nuisance" lawsuits and claims long ago and fight just about every claim to the hilt.

guys, their is no more truth to the alleged 'litigation crisis' as there is to 'Saddam Hussein was involved in 911.' it's PR, not truth, and if there is a shred of truth to this myth, it is more likely caused by those responsible for the myth, the insurance companies themselves. the dockets are absolutely clogged with cases where the insurance company has no legitimate defense (other than maybe whore doctors) but refuses to settle because they know these injured people will give up and get what they can get now simply because they have hungry children at home.

Tracer Bullet · May 25, 2007

The funny part about this exchange is that nothing abuck has said in the quoted language above requires any knowledge or experience in law. He put forth a hypo and then questioned another poster's credibility to speak on whether the tow truck driver was negligent.

And btw - I second the congrats and good luck, abuck. The bar is a waste of time.

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

obviously without all the facts developed or any research into the Misery law, my reading of this Hancock case

either -

this lawyer is bringing suit to challenge the law in some way, perhaps to clarify the definition of 'voluntary' intoxication. he knows he will lose and is more looking forward to the appeal.

or

he has a legitimate claim against the tow truck driver for not acting reasonable when servicing the other vehicle, and counts against the bar and the driver of the other car are thrown in as alternate theories of recovery, something every lawyer worth his salt will do, and all the press is focusing in on the count(s) against Shannon's.

The Voice of Reason · May 25, 2007

Anybody else wonder why the hundreds of other cars that passed the tow truck during the time it was parked on the road didn't ram into it?

Possibly because the drivers of the other cars weren't over double the legal alcohol limit, high as a kite, talking on a cell phone and in a hurry to continue drinking.

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

dude, you have to give Hancock's Dad's lawyer a call since you are obviously a fact witness in this case.

me thinks you should rethink your user name.

Soriano12 · May 25, 2007

:roll:

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

hey man, sorry I just shattered the myths you believe in, but that's no excuse to sink into complete and utter lameness.

Abe Frohman · May 25, 2007

One thing I do remember from the Busines Law courses I took a decade ago, is that you sue everyone in a case like this (if you are going to sue). The defendants will work out who is liable.

Common sense doesn't always translate into what is the law, and in this case the lawsuit seems like madness. [/b]

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

let me take this in a different direction. let's assume you are right and there were hundreds of cars who passed this tow truck as he sat in on a highway without a break down lane before Hancock hit him.

what would a reasonable tow truck operator do in that situation?

cubfan1955 · May 25, 2007

Hey jjgman21, thanks for the informative and civil post. I know what you are saying and the point is well taken. To me though this, given the information that we have been provided with, still reeks of Hancock's family trying to cash out over his death. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

RichHillIsABeast · May 25, 2007

The police released videotape of the crash, which showed a fair amount of traffic that night.

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05/02/surveillance-video-of-josh-hancock-crash-released/

jaydee · May 25, 2007

it is pretty sad how people in our society care so much about the almighty dollar. what pitiful lives some of these ppl must lead

RynoRules · May 25, 2007

Having done insurance defense work (employment related) for three years, I question your asserstion that insurance companies fight each and every claim that comes in. In my line of work the opposite was true.

The Voice of Reason · May 25, 2007

Dude - The police released videotape of the crash, which showed a fair amount of traffic that night.

http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05/02/surveillance-video-of-josh-hancock-crash-released/

Now that I know my screen name bugs you, I'll never change it.

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

I didn't know that, and that's why I asked the other question. I haven't looked into this story extensive, but I understand there is evidence the tow truck was there because the stalled car was cutoff by another car. there is also a dispute as to how long the tow truck was there, but some evidence shows it was there for 15 minutes.

so in those facts, what would a reasonable tow truck driver do? I think a pretty good argument could be made that a reasonable tow truck driver would call the police, put out flares and cones, etc. He did none of that.

the element of negligence that is being debated here is duty. the law requires people to act reasonably in their various affairs, and if they fail to do so, they are held liable if their failure to act reasonably proximately and directly causes injury to another. if the tow truck driver acted in a way that other tow truck drivers would not, he very well may be liable. now people will always debate when a duty arises, but that's for people with a helluva lot more experience in evaluating the costs and benefits of applying a duty to various members of society. they are called appellate court judges and legislators. duty is a question of law, not fact.

the second debate that is going on here is what conclusions can be drawn from the various facts that have come out in the press. but what people need to realize is that often times filing a lawsuit is the only way to get at reliable facts. as I alluded to before, you file against other potentially liable parties so you can get to the facts through the discovery process.

to illustrate this, here's a hypothetical. there was recently a debate on here about AA. I didn't interject, but medical science is quite clear that alcoholics cannot resist alcohol when presented with it. let's say that the employees and management of Shannon's knew damn well that Hancock had severe substance abuse problems, including alcohol. let's also say there was a standing order by management at Shannon's to put a drink in every Cardinals players hands the second they enter the establishment and to make sure that glass is never empty. an argument could be made that Hancock's intoxication was not voluntary under those circumstances as his "disease" did not allow him to make any choice.

it's a stretch, but it's a legal theory that is up to the courts to decide. you think it's frivolous, fine, but realize these tactics are employed a helluva lot more by powerful interests, like the insurance industry than they are by "ambulance chasers." but the point of this hypo is nobody would ever know these facts and the courts will never have the opportunity to decide, if a lawsuit is not filed and the discovery process not employed.

same can be said about the other driver. he claims he stalled when he spun out after a car cut him off. what if he stalled after spinning out because he was high and fell asleep at the wheel? certainly his actions were not reasonable, and his actions were A direct cause of the Hancock's death under those circumstances. but how would anyone ever know without the ability to compel that driver and other potential witnesses to answer interrogatories, produce documents and other things, and give depositions? there is no other way but through the discovery process.

Edited May 25, 2007 by jjgman21

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

then answer my other post.

The Voice of Reason · May 25, 2007

I don't have time to write a ten paragraph rebuttal. I think Bryan Burwell summarizes my position pretty clearly.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/1FBF0AE27864112A862572E600125E84?OpenDocument

cubfan1955 · May 25, 2007

I believe the video showed the tow truck driver was there less than 5 minutes before the accident. More like 3 minutes if I remember the video correctly. The tow truck driver had his flashing lights going. The tow truck driver saw the Hancock automobile approaching at a high rate of speed and out of desperation the tow truck driver was honking his horn trying to alert the oncoming vehicle. To me, if the tow truck driver could see the oncoming Hancock vehicle with no flashing lights I see no reason why Hancock should not have seen a huge tow truck with flashing lights. Unless he was distracted (cell phone), intoxicated, or both. The police had been called but according to the STL police chielf had not arrived on the scene yet. Those are the facts the STL PD have released. The only indisputable facts are that Hanckock was talking on the cell phone, was intoxicated, was in possession of illegal drugs, and was speeding.

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

see what I say above regarding the discovery process. same applies for the tow truck driver. none of this stuff, including the video, is reliable until put through the discovery process.

until the driver is questioned under cross examination, who's to say he didn't say whatever necessary to exculpate his liability. the video can be challenged in any of a number of ways as to it's reliability, starting with the driver who, according to the article I read, said he was there 5-7 minutes.

the press convinced the American people that Iraq was a danger to us. the press is so unreliable in presenting accurate, reliable facts as to make the notion laughable.

jjgman21 · May 25, 2007

well I covered every single issue in that article in my previous post, so maybe you should attempt a rebuttal, because you present no new argument as to why calling this suit frivolous isn't premature at best, or where my reasoning is flawed. my post involves some intricate topics regarding the practice of law and our judicial system. sorry I couldn't sumarize it more succinctly for you, and I'm more sorry you chose to ignore some insight as to how the system really words and instead rely on Bryan Burwell, whoever the hell he is.

Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs