Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

[Soriano12]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

[cubfan1955]

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.

 

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.

 

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/

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

Now come on. Who said anything about the press? The facts are those given out my the STL PD, coroners office, cell phone records and the video.

 

And it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell that convinced the American public that Iraq was a danger to us. Not the press.

[jjgman21]

Now come on. Who said anything about the press? The facts are those given out my the STL PD, coroners office, cell phone records and the video.

 

And it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell that convinced the American public that Iraq was a danger to us. Not the press.

 

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence).

 

so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest.

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

[kujay]

On a somewhat related note, the Cardinals website indicates that the postponed game has been rescheduled as the first of a 1:40/7:40 DH on Friday, September 14th.

[jersey cubs fan]

On a somewhat related note, the Cardinals website indicates that the postponed game has been rescheduled as the first of a 1:40/7:40 DH on Friday, September 14th.

 

Which follows a 3 game set in Houston. Given the nature of September rosters, this changes the ramifications of the doubleheader, since presumably both teams could have an extra starter or two on the roster, and a couple extra bullpen arms. The only other option was a trip in late July.

 

Hopefully these will still be meaningful games for the Cubs by then.

[Abe Frohman]

 

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

 

From what I hear, the policy at Shannon's is that you are not allowed to be in there without a drink in hand. At least that is what my buddy the Anhauser-Busch rep told me.

[Soriano12]

If that DH hurts the Cubs playoff chances, I think the Cubs should sue Dean Hancock for raising a dumb lush.

[Soul]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

There's likely another game being played here. It's called the "if it was my son's own fault then by proxy it is my fault," game.

[Soriano12]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

There's likely another game being played here. It's called the "if it was my son's own fault then by proxy it is my fault," game.

 

I don't think anyone truly believes his dad is responsible, it is all tongue in cheek.......in response to his pathetic actions of blaming everyone but his own son for the accident and death.

[Soul]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

There's likely another game being played here. It's called the "if it was my son's own fault then by proxy it is my fault," game.

 

I don't think anyone truly believes his dad is responsible, it is all tongue in cheek.......in response to his pathetic actions of blaming everyone but his own son for the accident and death.

 

I'm actually referring to something deeper. Like, what might be going on inside the father's head to make him bring these ridiculous lawsuits. Perhaps if he can win a settlement of some kind, he can feel better about himself. Many fathers would feel they didn't do a good job of raising their son if he flew off the handle the way Josh did.

 

Obviously I could be wrong, but it's hard to come up with good reasons why such baseless suits are brought.

[Jehrico]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

He should sue Darwin's ancestors for his theory that only the smartest and strongest survive while the dumb and unfit should die off. Or he should sue himself for not teaching him to not drink and drive or do drugs.

[jaydee]

 

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

 

From what I hear, the policy at Shannon's is that you are not allowed to be in there without a drink in hand. At least that is what my buddy the Anhauser-Busch rep told me.

 

sounds like an awesome bar

[cubfan1955]

 

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

 

From what I hear, the policy at Shannon's is that you are not allowed to be in there without a drink in hand. At least that is what my buddy the Anhauser-Busch rep told me.

Your buddy is wrong. I've been in there several times and not once was I required to have/buy a drink.

[cubfan1955]

Now come on. Who said anything about the press? The facts are those given out my the STL PD, coroners office, cell phone records and the video.

 

And it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell that convinced the American public that Iraq was a danger to us. Not the press.

 

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence).

 

so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest.

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been.

[jjgman21]

Now come on. Who said anything about the press? The facts are those given out my the STL PD, coroners office, cell phone records and the video.

 

And it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell that convinced the American public that Iraq was a danger to us. Not the press.

 

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence).

 

so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest.

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been.

 

the only insinuation I made is that people cover their own asses. if that meets your definition of nefarious schemes, then fine, there may be nefarious schemes.

 

a police investigation is designed to see if a crime was committed. it is not designed to determine civil liability. I'm not going to discuss this point further. either you get it or you don't.

[SouthSideRyan]

The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been.

 

Cause tow truck drivers are gods down in St. Louis. They have nothing else to do but watch tow truck drivers down there so the police are more likely to help them out in these situations.

[cubfan1955]

Now come on. Who said anything about the press? The facts are those given out my the STL PD, coroners office, cell phone records and the video.

 

And it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell that convinced the American public that Iraq was a danger to us. Not the press.

 

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence).

 

so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest.

 

I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.

The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been.

 

the only insinuation I made is that people cover their own asses. if that meets your definition of nefarious schemes, then fine, there may be nefarious schemes.

 

a police investigation is designed to see if a crime was committed. it is not designed to determine civil liability. I'm not going to discuss this point further. either you get it or you don't.

How about if we put the liability squarely where it belongs in this case? On Josh Hancock and not clog up the courts with more nonsense.

[cubfan1955]

The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been.

 

Cause tow truck drivers are gods down in St. Louis. They have nothing else to do but watch tow truck drivers down there so the police are more likely to help them out in these situations.

Huh?

 

Seriously...huh?

[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.

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

 

you're right...three years of law school and i know no more than anyone else on this board.

[abuck1220]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

can i sue you for telling a slight variation of the same lame joke fifty times in this thread?

[indifferent]

Two things here, Hancock was shown by the autopsy to not have any active THC in his blood, so that assumption's wrong. The only statement made about offering the cab and the story about heading to the Westin was made by Pat Shannon, the manager of the bar. I'm sure they'll dig into that claim.

 

Missouri has one of the most lax laws about suing bars in cases like this. You can sue bars, but there is no teeth to what defines the "visibly intoxicated" standard.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

can i sue you for telling a slight variation of the same lame joke fifty times in this thread?

 

class action?

[Bote McBoteface]

This has most likely been discussed already, but honestly... at what point do we make a grown man take responsibility for his own actions? All these law suits are ridiculous, in my opinion.

 

I could totally understand suing the bar if he was under twenty-one or it was his twenty first birthday, but this guy was 29 years old. Hopefully in court, most or all the blame is put on his shoulders, I would hate to see others paying out big money because of somebody else's immaturity.

[Soriano12]

Hey we should play a game...every day we can think of someone new to blame for Handcock's death....my pick today is the dealer that sold Handcock that weed. Had he sold Josh some weed laced with coke, I'm sure Josh would have been much more alert behind the wheel and this would have never happened.

 

I think I have a case!

 

can i sue you for telling a slight variation of the same lame joke fifty times in this thread?

 

Why not. An unemployed lawyer can use a break right?

[The Voice of Reason]

 

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

 

 

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.

 

Bryan Burwell is just a dumb sportswriter out of St. Louis (not a smart lawyer like you) so I guess his opinion (that differs from yours) shouldn't be taken seriously. I'll let the Chicago Tribune (who thought enough of his article to run it in their Sunday edition) know that jjgman21 doesn't agree with Mr. Burrell or even know who he is. I'm sure they'll retract the article.

 

Counselor, let me offer a final summation on this matter.

 

Josh Hancock was stupid punk. His father Dean is proving to be an even bigger jerk. As for Dean's headline-grabbing, money-grubbing lawyer, it's obvious he has only one interest in this case - finding out how deep Shannon's pockets are so he knows how much he can pick.