davearm

Let me ask you this. If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing? Just Josh Hancock? Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident? Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course). ummm, I have answered this question before in this thread. A family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, and no we did not sue. Well it's certainly your right not to sue, and decline to hold the party(ies) responsible for your loss liable. Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to use the judicial system as it's intended to be used.

Anheuser Busch - for producing the product that contributed to his death The Cardinals - for serving beer in the clubhouse Teammates - For not stopping him from drinking Tony La Russa - For the great example he set Patrons at Shannons - For not stopping him from drinking Nancy Reagan - because "Just Say No" didn't work work with him Himself - For wasting the courts time with a lawsuit when he should be out lecturing high school students on the evils of drunk driving. I've got the same question for you as I had for Soriano12.

Let me ask you this. If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing? Just Josh Hancock? Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident? Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course).

I can't help but wonder how folks would be viewing the tow truck guy and the stalled vehicle guy if Hancock had been stone cold sober and not talking on his cellphone at the time of the accident. I also wonder how folks would be viewing Shannon's bar if someone other than Hancock has been the one killed. If those parties' actions (or inactions) were negligent under those hypothetical circumstances (and I'm not saying that they for sure were, but it'd be easy to argue that they were), then they're negligent under the actual circumstances, too. The fact that Hancock was drunk doesn't automatically shift everyone else's role from wrong to right.

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.

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.

Yes, because bartenders know everybody's tolerance and BAC and should be expected to stop serving somebody right when they're over the legal limit. While we're at it, let's install breathalyzers in every bar test everybody's BAC before they're allowed to order a drink. Just because a guy is drunk and over the limit doesn't mean a bartender can tell that the guy is. EDIT (just so I don't come off sounding like a complete dick): I do agree to a point that bars and bartenders should be held liable. If a guy is falling over and slurring and is visibly drunk, that is one thing, and then you shouldn't serve them. But with a lot of drinkers, especially some experienced ones, it is hard to tell when somebody is over the legal limit. 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.

FWIW, googling for "Missouri alcohol liability" uncovered two articles that seem to contradict your information. The pertinent portions: http://www.4therapy.com/consumer/life_topics/article/8927/533/Missouri+Court+Ponders+Alcohol+Liability+of+Convenience+Stores http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/mo-court-rules-convenience.html

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.

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. But possibly. Maybe this driver had the opportunity to get his/her car out of the way of the moving traffic but simply failed to do so. We don't know.

Perhaps because I think the drinker himself should be just as much and probably more accountable for his actions than the bartender. The drinker is more accountable. But he's not the only one accountable.

It's anything but fact that this accident wouldn't have occured if Hancock was stone cold sober and not talking on a cellphone. There's no earthly way to conclude that. For all we know, the car behind him would've gotten munched instead if Hancock had managed to avoid it. In the security cam video I saw a bunch of other cars get by that tow truck. Willing to bet those drivers were sober. And that proves what, exactly? That having a stalled car in the middle of traffic moving 70 MPH on the highway doesn't create a dangerous situation?

The exact opposite is true, actually. Everyone that contributed to this dangerous situation is being held accountable.

they can Thats incredibly sad. It might sound cold but I really hope that father doesn't get a cent. How is that incredibly sad? Bars/bartenders are not supposed to overserve folks precisely so that situations like this can be avoided.

It's anything but fact that this accident wouldn't have occured if Hancock was stone cold sober and not talking on a cellphone. There's no earthly way to conclude that. For all we know, the car behind him would've gotten munched instead if Hancock had managed to avoid it.

you have no idea what you're talking about. like it or not, if these parties were negligent and if their negligence contributed to his death, they're going to be held responsible. i don't know why that's so hard to understand and why everyone thinks it's so unfair. If you truly think that the owner of the stalled car should be held responsible, than you are seriously delusional. What's the legal precedent for a finding of negligence stemming from abandoning a vehicle in the left hand lane of a highway? I don't know, and I feel pretty comfortable assuming that you don't, either.

you have no idea what you're talking about. like it or not, if these parties were negligent and if their negligence contributed to his death, they're going to be held responsible. i don't know why that's so hard to understand and why everyone thinks it's so unfair. Exactly. Look, several different people may have acted negligently that night. Josh Hancock absolutely, positively did. And much more so than anyone else involved. Nobody's disputing that. The bar, bar manager, tow truck driver, and stalled vehicle owner may or may not have also acted negligently. That's TBD. But here's the key: the law does not prescribe that only the *most* negligent party can be held liable. The law prescribes that *all* negligent parties can be held liable.

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.

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.

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.

Nobody's being charged with a crime here. Civil litigation is totally different than criminal litigation.

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.

But here's the issue: Is the slice you get off a right-handed bat to rightfield inherently different than the hook you get off a left-handed bat to rightfield? Seems to me that in each instance the bat will impart clockwise sidespin on the ball, causing it to tail toward the foulline. By the same token, both LH and RH hitters impart counterclockwise sidespin on balls they hit to LF. If I'm right about all of this, then there's no differentiating LF from RF on the basis of ball trajectory issues. Conversely, if hooking (pulled) balls behave differently (less tailing action, to be specific) than slicing (opposite field) balls, then your theory's got legs.

Well done GrassBass. Appeal at second only: run counts (provided the runner crosses HP before the ball arrives at 2B). Appeal at third only: run doesn't count. Appeal at both bases: run doesn't count.

Besides that there are many more RHB than LHB, of course, meaning you deal with it a lot more in right than in left. Not sure what you mean here. Regardless of whether you're standing in LF or RF, and regardless of whether the batter is a lefty or a righty, a ball that starts out straight at you will tend to slice toward the foul line. Although I wouldn't bet the farm on it, intuitively it seems as though a ball that's pulled (and thus hooking) would move toward the line about the same amount as a ball that's hit to the opposite field (and thus slicing). The basic physics involved should be very similar in either case. Only if that's an incorrect assumption, and hooking action is inherently different than slicing action, does the RF face a different set challenges than the LF (due to the discrepancy in RHB versus LHB). The main difference between RF and LF, and the one constant, is in the throws involved. At Wrigley, there are also sun and wind issues that differentiate LF from RF. Of course in many other parks (like Fenway), there are also significantly different dimensions to deal with.