Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

[Soriano12]

Why offer him a cab if he wasn't visibly intoxicated?

 

That argument, sadly, will probably win Handcocks dad the case.

 

It's only a matter of time before:

 

Insurance for Bar Owners skyrockets causing many to shut down

Bars start having strictly enforced 1 drink limits

You have to sign a waiver before entering a Bar.

 

 

Fantastic.

[cubfan1955]

I completely agree with the sentiment that it's utterly ridiculous of the father to go on a lawsuit-spree, but the suit against Mike Shannon's has legs. If it Hancock was obviously and visibly intoxicated while he was being served by Shannon's employees, then I think it'll be an open and shut case in favor of the father, and it'll probably be settled out of court. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the final settlement is in the 10 mil range.

 

The suits against the tow truck driver and the driver of the disabled vehicle should be laughed out of court, but I think the dad wins the case against Shannon's if there's a grain of truth in the several eyewitness quotes in the media that Hancock was nearly incoherent.

 

Given Shannon's long-time close association with the Cardinal organization, I'd be surprised if TLR, Jocketty, etc don't distance themselves from this debacle. 'No comment' is the only reasonable response.

I really don't see how the suit against the bar has any legs. He was not falling down drunk. They offered him a cab and his response was "no thanks, I'm walking to the Westin". (Hotel down the street).

 

You can't sue a bar for serving people that are drunk. That's insane.

[jyoung55]

you guys act like because a suit was filed the dad is going to get a check for a billion dollars tomorrow.

 

I could care less if he is suing for 3 bucks. It is the principal that is disgusting. Suing the frekain tow truck driver and the owner who called the tow truck? Gee, if my car ever breaks down god forbid I call a tow truck because some drunk moron could hit it and kill himself. And that would be 100% my fault, because you know, you have to consider that right. :roll:

 

you have a fantastic understanding of the law.

 

What are you talking about? The only person who broke the law was Josh Hancock. The law may allow for pointless lawsuits that attempt to shift the blame, but that doesn't make it right. His dad can file suit against anyone for anything, but any judge with his/her head on their shoulders is going to pimp slap this into the circular file.

 

:lol: :lol: The thought of any Judge pimp slapping anything is way too comical for me to handle. Let alone pimp slapping something into the "circular file." That's not exactly how it works. Apparently, TV does rot the brain.

[davearm]

You can't sue a bar for serving people that are drunk. That's insane.

Absolutely you can.

 

Bars/bartenders have a legal obligation not to overserve their customers.

 

Visibly drunk folks get refused service for this reason all the time.

[jyoung55]

Why offer him a cab if he wasn't visibly intoxicated?

 

That argument, sadly, will probably win Handcocks dad the case.

 

It's only a matter of time before:

 

Insurance for Bar Owners skyrockets causing many to shut down

Bars start having strictly enforced 1 drink limits

You have to sign a waiver before entering a Bar.

 

 

Fantastic.

 

You couldn't sign a valid waiver if you are already drunk... but nice thought.

[davearm]

What are you talking about? The only person who broke the law was Josh Hancock. The law may allow for pointless lawsuits that attempt to shift the blame, but that doesn't make it right. His dad can file suit against anyone for anything, but any judge with his/her head on their shoulders is going to pimp slap this into the circular file.

Nobody's being charged with a crime here.

 

Civil litigation is totally different than criminal litigation.

[cubfan1955]

You can't sue a bar for serving people that are drunk. That's insane.

Absolutely you can.

 

Bars/bartenders have a legal obligation not to overserve their customers.

 

Visibly drunk folks get refused service for this reason all the time.

Depends on what you consider "visibly drunk". The guy from ESPN that was there couldn't tell he was drunk.

[FergieJ31]

I really don't see how the suit against the bar has any legs. He was not falling down drunk. They offered him a cab and his response was "no thanks, I'm walking to the Westin". (Hotel down the street).

 

I never heard the quote about him waving off a cab b/c he was walking to the Westin; that certainly would mitigate things. Was that widely reported? Even so, I still think the father has a case, not that I like it anymore than you do.

 

You can't sue a bar for serving people that are drunk. That's insane.

 

You CAN sue a bar for serving someone who's visibly drunk and goes out and kills someone. It happens all the time. Remember, there's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The restaurant is liable for damages caused by serving drunk patrons, period. It's part of the liquor license.

[abuck1220]

 

You can't sue a bar for serving people that are drunk. That's insane.

 

you're absolutely wrong.

 

but at least you say it with conviction.

[cubfan1955]

I never heard the quote about him waving off a cab b/c he was walking to the Westin; that certainly would mitigate things. Was that widely reported? Even so, I still think the father has a case, not that I like it anymore than you do.

 

Yes, it was reported on KMOX in St. Louis a few days after the crash. They had a legal expert on talking about this very subject and his opinion was that his family would have no legal recourse against Shannons because 1) they offered to call him a cab and 2) He told them he was walking to the Westin.

[Soriano12]

I'd still like to know on what grounds he thinks he has the right to sue the owner of the stalled car.

[jaydee]

good to see his dad is a complete moron too. runs in the family.

[jyoung55]

I'd still like to know on what grounds he thinks he has the right to sue the owner of the stalled car.

 

Well I guess if you were his attorney you'd file a motion to dismiss under trial rule 12 b 6 and I'd say good job.

[davearm]

Well, it's not surprising Hancock's dad did this. People blame all sorts of weird things/people/events when they're grieving. The lawsuit is ridiculous. Josh chose to drink. Josh chose to drive. Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving. Josh chose to be in possession of an illegal substance. No one is to blame for this mess other than Josh Hancock.

What's wrong with the idea that more than one person contributed to this accident?

 

All of the above are plausible contributing factors to this accident:

Josh chose to drink.

Josh chose to drive.

Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving.

Shannon's bar overserved Josh.

The manager of Shannon's allowed Josh to be overserved.

The driver of the disabled car did not move his vehicle out of traffic.

The tow truck driver did not adequately alert oncoming vehicles to the hazard with flares, triangles, etc.

 

... and the one I can't believe hasn't been included in the lawsuit:

The government didn't provide adequate breakdown lanes on the highway.

 

Take away any one of those contributing factors, and there's an excellent chance this accident never happens. Therefore everyone shares in the blame.

 

Now whether blame rises to the legal standard of negligence is up to a court to determine.

[cubfan1955]

 

You can't sue a bar for serving people that are drunk. That's insane.

 

you're absolutely wrong.

 

but at least you say it with conviction.

Well, you can sue anyone for just about anything. Try waking up with a bad hangover and suing the bar. Like I said, it depends on someones interpretation of "visibly drunk".

[soccer10k]

good to see his dad is a complete moron too. runs in the family.

 

Yup, they obviously lack the intelligence gene.

[OleMissCub]

good to see his dad is a complete moron too. runs in the family.

 

Like I said earlier, I played with his younger brother Jon, and he was kicked off the squad for being academically ineligible. Was once rated as the 4th best power hitting prospect in the country coming out of high school....but was never too bright.

[cubfan1955]

Well, it's not surprising Hancock's dad did this. People blame all sorts of weird things/people/events when they're grieving. The lawsuit is ridiculous. Josh chose to drink. Josh chose to drive. Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving. Josh chose to be in possession of an illegal substance. No one is to blame for this mess other than Josh Hancock.

What's wrong with the idea that more than one person contributed to this accident?

 

All of the above are plausible contributing factors to this accident:

Josh chose to drink.

Josh chose to drive.

Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving.

Shannon's bar overserved Josh.

The manager of Shannon's allowed Josh to be overserved.

The driver of the disabled car did not move his vehicle out of traffic.

The tow truck driver did not adequately alert oncoming vehicles to the hazard with flares, triangles, etc.

 

... and the one I can't believe hasn't been included in the lawsuit:

The government didn't provide adequate breakdown lanes on the highway.

 

Take away any one of those contributing factors, and there's an excellent chance this accident never happens. Therefore everyone shares in the blame.

 

Now whether blame rises to the legal standard of negligence is up to a court to determine.

Better throw in the the company that made the alcohol too. And the Cubs probably contributed also since he was probably sad his team lost earlier that day thereby causing mental anguish.

[Soriano12]

The driver of the disabled car did not move his vehicle out of traffic.

 

Maybe because it was, ummm...disabled?

[davearm]

Yes, it was reported on KMOX in St. Louis a few days after the crash. They had a legal expert on talking about this very subject and his opinion was that his family would have no legal recourse against Shannons because 1) they offered to call him a cab and 2) He told them he was walking to the Westin.

None of this has any bearing on the bar's (alleged) failure to adhere to its responsibility not to overserve its patrons.

 

It's not as though knowing someone won't be driving makes it okay for a bar to overserve that person. It just doesn't work that way.

[Soriano12]

Well, it's not surprising Hancock's dad did this. People blame all sorts of weird things/people/events when they're grieving. The lawsuit is ridiculous. Josh chose to drink. Josh chose to drive. Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving. Josh chose to be in possession of an illegal substance. No one is to blame for this mess other than Josh Hancock.

What's wrong with the idea that more than one person contributed to this accident?

 

All of the above are plausible contributing factors to this accident:

Josh chose to drink.

Josh chose to drive.

Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving.

Shannon's bar overserved Josh.

The manager of Shannon's allowed Josh to be overserved.

The driver of the disabled car did not move his vehicle out of traffic.

The tow truck driver did not adequately alert oncoming vehicles to the hazard with flares, triangles, etc.

 

... and the one I can't believe hasn't been included in the lawsuit:

The government didn't provide adequate breakdown lanes on the highway.

 

Take away any one of those contributing factors, and there's an excellent chance this accident never happens. Therefore everyone shares in the blame.

 

Now whether blame rises to the legal standard of negligence is up to a court to determine.

Better throw in the the company that made the alcohol too. And the Cubs probably contributed also since he was probably sad his team lost earlier that day thereby causing mental anguish.

 

I think they should sue the Cell Phone Provider too, becuase if they had provided him a headset with his new service agreement, this accident might have never happened.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Soriano12

[Wheelimus]

To be perfectly honest, if they offered him a cab and he was able to coherently say "no, I'm walking down to the Westin", then he wasn't drunk enough to warrant not being served.

[davearm]

Well, it's not surprising Hancock's dad did this. People blame all sorts of weird things/people/events when they're grieving. The lawsuit is ridiculous. Josh chose to drink. Josh chose to drive. Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving. Josh chose to be in possession of an illegal substance. No one is to blame for this mess other than Josh Hancock.

What's wrong with the idea that more than one person contributed to this accident?

 

All of the above are plausible contributing factors to this accident:

Josh chose to drink.

Josh chose to drive.

Josh chose to talk on his cell phone while driving.

Shannon's bar overserved Josh.

The manager of Shannon's allowed Josh to be overserved.

The driver of the disabled car did not move his vehicle out of traffic.

The tow truck driver did not adequately alert oncoming vehicles to the hazard with flares, triangles, etc.

 

... and the one I can't believe hasn't been included in the lawsuit:

The government didn't provide adequate breakdown lanes on the highway.

 

Take away any one of those contributing factors, and there's an excellent chance this accident never happens. Therefore everyone shares in the blame.

 

Now whether blame rises to the legal standard of negligence is up to a court to determine.

Better throw in the the company that made the alcohol too. And the Cubs probably contributed also since he was probably sad his team lost earlier that day thereby causing mental anguish.

I don't think any reasonable person -- and certainly no court of law -- would conclude that these were negligent acts.

 

Were the others negligent acts? Not too difficult to make that argument. Ultimately it will be for the courts to decide, which is the whole point here.

[sethuel1]

This reeks of "I lost my golden calf and now I have to figure out how to get the money I deserved."

 

Your son was a drunk moron, and to do anything other than hang your head in shame and stay the hell out of the spotlight is completely inappropriate, you dumbass.

[RichHillIsABeast]

The driver of the disabled car did not move his vehicle out of traffic.

 

Maybe because it was, ummm...disabled?

 

I don't recall any of the sober people not talking on their cell phones crashing into that disabled vehicle/tow truck. Hancock's physical condition led to the accident.

 

Watch out for obstacles in the road. If he wasn't such a drunken idiot, maybe he could have avoided a stationary object like all the other drivers did that night.