Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

[Derwood]

thank god no one spilled coffee on themselves in this crash....

[Soriano12]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

[Jehrico]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

Hargrove and Tolar should countersue Dean Hancock for negligence in nearly getting them killed because he didn't teach his son not to drink and drive. That would stand about as much chance of winning as Hancocks suit against them, maybe more.

[abuck1220]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

[radarluv1]

the only question the hancocks should have is whether or not the truck driver followed the rules properly. if the only way to get that info is by suing everyone, naming them publicly, and making them spend money on legal defense then the system sucks.

[cubfan1955]

Interesting Article

 

Ballplayer's father faces an uphill fight

 

Missouri does not even permit such a suit if the drinker is 21 or older, a restriction that would seem to preclude the Hancock suit except the law has an exception if the liquor consumption is "involuntary."

 

I think that's going to be difficult to prove.

 

Krispin, who is not involved in the Hancock case, said its most difficult obstacle would be to prove the intoxication was "involuntary."

 

The lawyer said, "The only way to get around the statute is to show that the drinks were spiked." He added, "Or they are going to create an argument that alcohol by its nature diminished a person's ability to make a conscious decision."

The bolded part seems pretty weak too.

[Soul]

That'll get laughed out of court. Good luck. I suppose it wasn't his choice to get drunk enough where he could no longer make good decisions?

 

How about the several weeks leading up to his death, when he was clearly off the rails? Not his fault either? I guess nothing's his fault then.

 

While we're at it, I would have preferred to wind up a multi-millionaire just for breathing. Wasn't my choice. Think I'll sue everyone for that one too. Has about as much merit as this stupid case, that's for damn sure.

 

I wish there was a mechanism by which we could dismiss a case like this with prejudice (i.e. can't bring it again) before it even reaches the media, or a judge's eyes.

[Soriano12]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

[abuck1220]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

i'd rather be in the minority and be right than be in the majority and be wrong.

[CUBZ99]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

Like it or not, we have an easily accessible legal system. The problem I see with determining negligence or liability based on media and police reports up to this point, is simple --- we don't know all of the facts.

 

I worked for a firm defending insurance cases like this and similar cases were brought against the insurance company.

 

There were generally two outcomes:

 

1. There were either more facts to justify the law suit or

2. The plaintiff lost.

 

Let the system work.

[The Voice of Reason]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

i'd rather be in the minority and be right than be in the majority and be wrong.

 

The problem is you are in the minority and wrong.

[abuck1220]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

i'd rather be in the minority and be right than be in the majority and be wrong.

 

The problem is you are in the minority and wrong.

 

you're right. you and soriano12 are right and me and america's legal system are completely wrong.

[Sammy Sofa]

you're right. you and soriano12 are right and me and america's legal system are completely wrong.

 

Do you really want to argue with a descendent of Soriano's who has traveled back from the future to share his wisdom with us all?

[davearm]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

[Backtobanks]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

 

I'm surprised the dad didn't go after everyone who helped build the road.

[davearm]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

 

I'm surprised the dad didn't go after everyone who helped build the road.

This shtick is getting old.

 

There's nothing negligent about building a road.

[cubfan1955]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

I think a lot of people just don't believe point number two is true.

[abuck1220]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

I think a lot of people just don't believe point number two is true.

 

he said that they both could be true.

 

if point number two isn't true, then hancock will lose. but that determination has to be made by a judge/jury, not message board majority.

[seanimal]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

I think a lot of people just don't believe point number two is true.

 

he said that they both could be true.

 

if point number two isn't true, then hancock will lose. but that determination has to be made by a judge/jury, not message board majority.

 

What a fickle justice system.

[cubfan1955]

So the family is suing Shannon and his daughter, the restaurant manager who tried to persuade Hancock to take a taxi. Hancock's family also is suing the tow truck driver and the man whose car he was attempting to remove from the highway, in some twisted logic that tries to make all of these folks responsible for a man's own self-destructive behavior.

 

So perhaps this is all part of some new-age grief counseling. Yes, indeed, somewhere between shock and denial, bargaining and guilt, anger and depression, acceptance and hope, there is another means of coping with the grief from losing a loved one:

 

Frivolous litigation.

 

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand.

 

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

 

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously:

* Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy;

* Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame.

 

Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not.

I think a lot of people just don't believe point number two is true.

 

he said that they both could be true.

 

if point number two isn't true, then hancock will lose. but that determination has to be made by a judge/jury, not message board majority.

And that is what is going to happen. People are just voicing their opinion. I don't think anyone believes that the message board majority is going to overrule the legal system here. Truste me, I know our legal system is the best on the planet and without it the government/police could run amuck. I just think a lot of people were flabbergasted that Hancock's father filed the lawsuit given what everyone had heard about it. I've got no problem with it going to court. I still think they will lose on all counts. Should be interesting.

[Soriano12]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

Like it or not, we have an easily accessible legal system. The problem I see with determining negligence or liability based on media and police reports up to this point, is simple --- we don't know all of the facts.

 

I worked for a firm defending insurance cases like this and similar cases were brought against the insurance company.

 

There were generally two outcomes:

 

1. There were either more facts to justify the law suit or

2. The plaintiff lost.

 

Let the system work.

 

Because the "system" is sooo perfect. Please :roll:

[abuck1220]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

Like it or not, we have an easily accessible legal system. The problem I see with determining negligence or liability based on media and police reports up to this point, is simple --- we don't know all of the facts.

 

I worked for a firm defending insurance cases like this and similar cases were brought against the insurance company.

 

There were generally two outcomes:

 

1. There were either more facts to justify the law suit or

2. The plaintiff lost.

 

Let the system work.

 

Because the "system" is sooo perfect. Please :roll:

 

i'd love to hear some of your ideas to fix it.

[seanimal]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

Like it or not, we have an easily accessible legal system. The problem I see with determining negligence or liability based on media and police reports up to this point, is simple --- we don't know all of the facts.

 

I worked for a firm defending insurance cases like this and similar cases were brought against the insurance company.

 

There were generally two outcomes:

 

1. There were either more facts to justify the law suit or

2. The plaintiff lost.

 

Let the system work.

 

Because the "system" is sooo perfect. Please :roll:

 

i'd love to hear some of your ideas to fix it.

 

It probably involves something like firing jim hendry, lou peniella, scott eyre, ryan dempster, and not allowing people to sue for liability.

[Soul]

i'd love to hear some of your ideas to fix it.

 

1) This 'we the people' thing. It's outdated. Dump it.

 

2) Stop wasting time browbeating each other in stupid 'deliberation' sessions that accomplish nothing.

 

3) Lawyers are an inefficient, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Let each defendant defend him or her self. Trust me, they'll figure it out if they know what's good for them.

 

4) The public is too fickle and stupid for court trials. Make them all secret to avoid idiots who don't know what they're talking about stirring up hysteria over things they do not understand.

 

5) One man, one vote. Hey, it works for elections don't it??

 

6) The French are obviously smarter than we are. Let them decide who is guilty and/or innocent. Oh yes, that's right --- people can be both at the same time in France!

 

7) If all else fails, give my secretary your number. I'll guarantee a one week turnaround -- no questions asked.....or expected.

[Soriano12]

Great article from a St. Louis writer

 

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

 

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

 

So continue on arguing that the tow druck driver and stalled car owner have a right to be sued, but you will continue to make fools of yourselves.

 

you really don't get it, do you?

 

There is nothing really to get. You are in the minority. Pretty much 99% of baseball fans agree bringing the tow truck driver and stalled car owner to court is assinine. But carry on.

 

Like it or not, we have an easily accessible legal system. The problem I see with determining negligence or liability based on media and police reports up to this point, is simple --- we don't know all of the facts.

 

I worked for a firm defending insurance cases like this and similar cases were brought against the insurance company.

 

There were generally two outcomes:

 

1. There were either more facts to justify the law suit or

2. The plaintiff lost.

 

Let the system work.

 

Because the "system" is sooo perfect. Please :roll:

 

i'd love to hear some of your ideas to fix it.

 

Less Ambulance Chasers would be a start.