abuck1220

seriously. wow, 200 wins in three seasons...did they name the ballpark after him?

I know tons of people in tons of different lines of work that are recognized as sacks of crap (police officers for example) and are actually outstanding performers. These 2 are good baseball examples. Sticking to my story: Hendry, Rothschild, Tribune Management, and Wrigley Field with the lead pipe in the Study. so the actual physical structure the cubs play in (like the wood, metal, dirt, cement and stuff) is more to blame for their failures than the guy who manages the team? whatever.

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. Huh? Think they know everything but have no practical legal experience. There is a lot more to the practice of law than what you learn in a law book. that's a pretty idiotic thing to say. you don't know me at all, and i am far from thinking i know everything. what did i say that wasn't accurate or what about this case is so beyond my simple mind?

i found it hard to take anything he wrote seriously after he mentioned the "derek jeter gene."

they're pure comparative negligence. and they don't have a dram shop act. I haven't read this whole thread, but judging by this post I assume what I'm going to say hasn't yet been said. We here in MO are a pure comparative negligence state. That's right. But we also do have a dram shop act. Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.053. My understanding of subsection (4) of that statute is that a person over 21 years old cannot sue an establishment for his own injuries arising from them overserving him. Because the wrongful death action is derivative, if Josh wouldn't have been able to sue, neither can his father. based on the part you mentioned and the following, i took it to mean they didn't have one...

they're pure comparative negligence. and they don't have a dram shop act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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? he could have been driving negligently in any number of ways. hell, i don't know what he was doing.

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. Perhaps because I think the drinker himself should be just as much and probably more accountable for his actions than the bartender. and he will be. why is this so hard to get?

if hancock wasn't drunk and the tow truck driver/driver was negligent, would you be ok with suing them?

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. Like I said, all it will take is some little "rat faced" lawyer, and some liberal judge, and Handocks dad will be a rich man. That still doesn't mean it is right to hold the tow truck driver and car owner accountable. Its disgusting, and basically an examble of the trend in today's society of no accountability. dude, you really just need to shut up. you clearly are just talking out your ass with no basis for what you are saying. you know nothing about the law, so stop posting like you do. my goodness. 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. you are definitely talking about the law. and you definitely are ignorant about the subject.

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. Like I said, all it will take is some little "rat faced" lawyer, and some liberal judge, and Handocks dad will be a rich man. That still doesn't mean it is right to hold the tow truck driver and car owner accountable. Its disgusting, and basically an examble of the trend in today's society of no accountability. dude, you really just need to shut up. you clearly are just talking out your ass with no basis for what you are saying. you know nothing about the law, so stop posting like you do. my goodness.

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.

Are you really going by the career averages of a 26 year old starting pitcher who came into the league at the age of 22? His last two seasons have been the stuff of a No. 2 starter, and he's not even near his pitching prime. His numbers are skewed by a rough 75 starts when he was getting his feet wet. I guess when your "point" is completely wrong, it's just easiest to make a fool of yourself. The difference is, I have a point. You have NOTHING but pure speculation. Pitchers in their prime have regressed before, you know. Myers wasn't moved to the pen because the Phillies had to have him there. He was moved because he flat out stunk in the rotation this season. 5 IP per start, with a 9+ ERA, and a WHIP of 1.6. Yep, those look like #2 starter numbers to me. Good point. In three starts. If you can't grasp how stupid it is to move a 26 year old, coming off two good-to-great seasons, to the bullpen because of two bad starts (his first start was good), then it's not even worth having this discussion with you. His numbers as a reliever are still better than his "good to great" seasons as a starter. Look, we disagree. No big deal. I just find the "Message Board Mentality" funny. You know.. the one where posters on a message board all think that they are so much smarter than actual executives in MLB. Yeah, we're all so smart. That's why none of us have a job in professional baseball. and i find the "he works in professional baseball so he must be good at his job" even funnier.

you're absolutely wrong. but at least you say it with conviction.

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.

I see a guy trying to profit off his son's death. Probably doing the same things he did when his son was alive, by blaming others for his kids' failings. so the bar shouldn't be held accountable for their negligence? Negligence??!?! What the hell are you talking about? Please. Stop. Talking. funny...i've thought the exact same thing about you dozens of times.

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

I see a guy trying to profit off his son's death. Probably doing the same things he did when his son was alive, by blaming others for his kids' failings. so the bar shouldn't be held accountable for their negligence?