Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

[jaydee]

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?

[Mizzou]

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?

Please explain to me how the driver of the stalled car should, in any way, be held accountable for this. What could he have done?

 

vehicles do not come to a sudden stop when they quit working - s/he should have coasted off the road, either all the way to the right or in the median

Not necessarily.

 

you really can't think of any way that driver could have been negligent? he could have been driving a car with no brakes, he could have been drunk, he could have been not paying attention while driving. seriously, it's not that hard to imagine.

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

Sure, those scenarios are possible but what does that have to do with anything? Regardless of whether or not the stalled car's driver was driving without brakes, the fact is that his car got plowed into by a drunken idiot.

 

and if his car was there because of his negligence, he's going to be held responsible.

So you think that because the kid didn't get out and try and push his car 2 or 3 lanes over in the middle of a busy highway, he should be held responsible for some drunk plowing into him? I personally think that's ridiculous.

[abuck1220]

There seems to be such a strong assumption that all the other parties involved are negligent.

 

there seems to be an even stronger assumption that everyone named in the lawsuit is going to pay this guy a bunch of money.

 

all the parties would be assigned a % of fault (if they're even found to be negligent, which they may not be). hancock's will likely be very, very, very high. any award his dad would get would be greatly, greatly, greatly, greatly reduced by his son's actions.

[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.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

burn

[Ding Dong Johnson]

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.

 

that sounded like it hurt

[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?

Please explain to me how the driver of the stalled car should, in any way, be held accountable for this. What could he have done?

 

vehicles do not come to a sudden stop when they quit working - s/he should have coasted off the road, either all the way to the right or in the median

Not necessarily.

 

you really can't think of any way that driver could have been negligent? he could have been driving a car with no brakes, he could have been drunk, he could have been not paying attention while driving. seriously, it's not that hard to imagine.

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

Sure, those scenarios are possible but what does that have to do with anything? Regardless of whether or not the stalled car's driver was driving without brakes, the fact is that his car got plowed into by a drunken idiot.

 

and if his car was there because of his negligence, he's going to be held responsible.

So you think that because the kid didn't get out and try and push his car 2 or 3 lanes over in the middle of a busy highway, he should be held responsible for some drunk plowing into him? I personally think that's ridiculous.

 

come on, man. if his car was there b/c the driver was negligent (ie driving the car w/o a steering wheel, driving drunk, driving w/ his feet) and the car was where it was because this negligence, there's a chance he could be liable. it has nothing to do with asking him to push his car across traffic.

[seanimal]

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?

 

Is the condescension necessary? I was respectfully replying my opinion, and never once said the trial shouldn't take place. I've read more than a couple of articles and have seen the video. You could be an adult and present some sort of thoughtful analysis as to why the driver would be negligent, or you can just insult another person for absolutely no reason whilst shielded by the anonymity of the internet. Your choice.

[cubfan1955]

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.

It has everything to do with it. You can't sue a bar for them letting you get drunk. There has to be gross negligence on the part of the bar and/or it's employees that causes injury to the plaintiff or someone they might cause to become injured. He would have to have been falling down drunk and then being served again or passing out and being served again when he woke up or something similar to that. According to the eyewitnesses, that wasn't the case. He was standing at the bar talking, drinking, and smoking cigarettes. Hardly enough to say the bar or bar manager is guilty of gross negligence.

 

These are the actions of a lawyer without much of a case suing everyone they possibly can and either hoping something sticks, one of the defendants cave and settles out of court, or are looking for a sympathetic jury full of Cardinal fans.

[RichHillIsABeast]

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.

 

Who's the man now, dog?

[RynoRules]

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.

 

Congrats and good luck with the Bar.

 

But to be fair, he did say experienced lawyer. Not that it matters - what we are discussing here involves pretty basic Torts class material.

 

What sort of negligence standard does the State of Mizzou utilize?

[KingCubsFan]

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.

 

Congrats and good luck with the Bar.

 

But to be fair, he did say experienced lawyer. Not that it matters - what we are discussing here involves pretty basic Torts class material.

 

What sort of negligence standard does the State of Mizzou utilize?

pretty sure it's pure comparative negligence

[VVMattVV]

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.

 

Who's the man now, dog?

 

Yeah, not like he was being sarcastic (note the 12345 on abuck's name) or anything.

[RynoRules]

In that case Hancock's father's strategy is simple - sue as many entities as possible and hope that the one with the deepest pockets (read: insurance) is assessed the greatest amount of blame.

[OleMissCub]

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.

[Soriano12]

I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about right and wrong. So if you really think that the stalled car and driver are partly responsible for this then you are pathetic.

 

let me guess, you also think the mcdonald's coffee lawsuit was completely ridiculous too.

 

It was. Let me guess, you are someone that likes to never accept resposiblity in life. To each their own.

 

okay then read the facts. McDonald's was serving coffee at an unusually hot temperature to save money (keep coffee from going cold), and at that temperature third degree burns will occur in a matter of seconds. Despite this, McDonald's had no warning label on their product and continued to serve coffee at a dangerously hot temperature.

 

So let me guess. You're somebody who wants to blame the individual for things that aren't really their fault, and let negligent businesses and corporations off the hook. To each his own.

 

Actually I think it's senseless to run to a courtroom whenever something wrong happens. I lost a family member thanks to a drunk, yet no one in my family sued because $$$ doesn't bring someone back.

[RynoRules]

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.

 

Actually its beyond negligent - its reckless / wilful and wanton conduct.

[jaydee]

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.

 

you were clearly being a dick. get over yourself.

[TruffleShuffle]

you were clearly being a dick. get over yourself.

 

and your conduct was perfectly civil? you were just as condescending, if not moreso.

[davearm]

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.

It has everything to do with it. You can't sue a bar for them letting you get drunk. There has to be gross negligence on the part of the bar and/or it's employees that causes injury to the plaintiff or someone they might cause to become injured. He would have to have been falling down drunk and then being served again or passing out and being served again when he woke up or something similar to that. According to the eyewitnesses, that wasn't the case. He was standing at the bar talking, drinking, and smoking cigarettes. Hardly enough to say the bar or bar manager is guilty of gross negligence.

 

These are the actions of a lawyer without much of a case suing everyone they possibly can and either hoping something sticks, one of the defendants cave and settles out of court, or are looking for a sympathetic jury full of Cardinal fans.

Bars get sued, and lose, all the time for overserving patrons that later go out and injure or kill someone (or themselves), destroy property, etc etc.

 

Look it's very simple. Whether you like it or believe it, both the bar patron and the bar/bartender share the burden of ensuring that alcohol is consumed responsibly, and that the patron is not overserved. Drunk or nearly-drunk people are known for having impaired judgement. Thus the need to shift burden to the server/establishment to make sure things don't get out of hand.

 

Now what the exact standard is for determining when someone's been overserved is in question here, but I'm certainly inclined to believe you're overstating it fairly significantly by suggesting a person has to be falling over or passed out before the bar/bartender has to step in and stop serving said person.

 

Regardless, the person who's drinking's mode of transportation back home (driving, walking, taxi, UFO, whatever) has absolutely no impact on the bar/bartender's responsibilities not to overserve said person.

[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.

 

you were clearly being a dick. get over yourself.

 

no, no, no...don't even try to make this into me acting like a big shot. you tried to be a smart ass, and i made you look like a fool. you brought it on yourself.

[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.

[radarluv1]

let me first say that i've read and respect the legal opinions, and appreciate having them here on the board. he may have a legal basis to sue, but all the rest of us end up paying for it. the disabled driver will have to hire a lwayer, probably have to come up with evidence to prove his car was fit for the road. if the identity of either driver is revealed, that could have serious repercussions for them as they live in stl. lots of money will be spent by the insurance co's and the state on legal fees, which will be passed on to others indirectly. you know josh wont come out of this looking anybetter. was there marijuana in his system? lets dig up the body and find out.how does this hancock sr look himself in the face everyday after this?

 

edit: i just RTFA. the drivers are named here.

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

[cubfan1955]

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.

It has everything to do with it. You can't sue a bar for them letting you get drunk. There has to be gross negligence on the part of the bar and/or it's employees that causes injury to the plaintiff or someone they might cause to become injured. He would have to have been falling down drunk and then being served again or passing out and being served again when he woke up or something similar to that. According to the eyewitnesses, that wasn't the case. He was standing at the bar talking, drinking, and smoking cigarettes. Hardly enough to say the bar or bar manager is guilty of gross negligence.

 

These are the actions of a lawyer without much of a case suing everyone they possibly can and either hoping something sticks, one of the defendants cave and settles out of court, or are looking for a sympathetic jury full of Cardinal fans.

Bars get sued, and lose, all the time for overserving patrons that later go out and injure or kill someone (or themselves), destroy property, etc etc.

 

Look it's very simple. Whether you like it or believe it, both the bar patron and the bar/bartender share the burden of ensuring that alcohol is consumed responsibly, and that the patron is not overserved. Drunk or nearly-drunk people are known for having impaired judgement. Thus the need to shift burden to the server/establishment to make sure things don't get out of hand.

 

Now what the exact standard is for determining when someone's been overserved is in question here, but I'm certainly inclined to believe you're overstating it fairly significantly by suggesting a person has to be falling over or passed out before the bar/bartender has to step in and stop serving said person.

 

Regardless, the person who's drinking's mode of transportation back home (driving, walking, taxi, UFO, whatever) has absolutely no impact on the bar/bartender's responsibilities not to overserve said person.

So where is that standard? From what I've read he wasn't acting in any way that would indicate that he should have been shut off from alcohol. Should they install breathalyzers in bars and quit serving before you hit the legal limit?

 

The biggest problem I have with it is that Josh Hancock is dead and it's Josh Hancock's fault that he is dead. Trying to place the blame on anyone else associated with that nights events, to me, is wrong. But I'm not a lawyer trying to drum up business. Just because you can file a lawsuit doesn't make it right.

[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.