cubfan1955

Juan Pierre is awesome.

Darn, looks like I missed the offensive fireworks and now the Cubs offense looks like it's back into hibernation. I hope Z can go 9 and allow zero runs.

You are seriously underestimating this teams ability to lose games in new and inventive ways. 8-)

The opposition plays better in the day, the night, in rain, in snow, wind blowing in, wind blowing out, week days, weekends, home, away, AL, NL...you name it. I think it's because the other teams are better than the Cubs.

What's so difficult to understand about the idea that Soriano leading off is not only not this team's problem, but moving him would be flat out stupid, given his history? You fix the bullpen, this team has an excellent chance. The Brewers aren't running away with it anymore. And Piniella has shown that nobody is safe and he'll try anything to fix things. I may be stupid but I'm really starting to get excited about this team. The offense IS one of the problems. Even a bigger problem than the bullpen. Give the bullpen some runs to work with and you won't see them imploding every freaking game. Las night was the exception rather than the rule.

I think if we had a team full of DLee's we would be okay.

I'd rather see him moved out of the leadoff spot too if Theriot can adequately bat leadoff. I think if a manager would put him in the 3-4-5 area and just leave him there he would hit. A good hitter will hit no matter where he is in the lineup. It's not like trying it is going to jeopardize our World Series chances this year.

Cause tow truck drivers are gods down in St. Louis. They have nothing else to do but watch tow truck drivers down there so the police are more likely to help them out in these situations. Huh? Seriously...huh?

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence). so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest. I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video. The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been. the only insinuation I made is that people cover their own asses. if that meets your definition of nefarious schemes, then fine, there may be nefarious schemes. a police investigation is designed to see if a crime was committed. it is not designed to determine civil liability. I'm not going to discuss this point further. either you get it or you don't. How about if we put the liability squarely where it belongs in this case? On Josh Hancock and not clog up the courts with more nonsense.

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence). so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest. I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video. The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been.

From what I hear, the policy at Shannon's is that you are not allowed to be in there without a drink in hand. At least that is what my buddy the Anhauser-Busch rep told me. Your buddy is wrong. I've been in there several times and not once was I required to have/buy a drink.

dude, you have to give Hancock's Dad's lawyer a call since you are obviously a fact witness in this case. me thinks you should rethink your user name. The police released videotape of the crash, which showed a fair amount of traffic that night. http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05/02/surveillance-video-of-josh-hancock-crash-released/ I didn't know that, and that's why I asked the other question. I haven't looked into this story extensive, but I understand there is evidence the tow truck was there because the stalled car was cutoff by another car. there is also a dispute as to how long the tow truck was there, but some evidence shows it was there for 15 minutes. I believe the video showed the tow truck driver was there less than 5 minutes before the accident. More like 3 minutes if I remember the video correctly. The tow truck driver had his flashing lights going. The tow truck driver saw the Hancock automobile approaching at a high rate of speed and out of desperation the tow truck driver was honking his horn trying to alert the oncoming vehicle. To me, if the tow truck driver could see the oncoming Hancock vehicle with no flashing lights I see no reason why Hancock should not have seen a huge tow truck with flashing lights. Unless he was distracted (cell phone), intoxicated, or both. The police had been called but according to the STL police chielf had not arrived on the scene yet. Those are the facts the STL PD have released. The only indisputable facts are that Hanckock was talking on the cell phone, was intoxicated, was in possession of illegal drugs, and was speeding. see what I say above regarding the discovery process. same applies for the tow truck driver. none of this stuff, including the video, is reliable until put through the discovery process. until the driver is questioned under cross examination, who's to say he didn't say whatever necessary to exculpate his liability. the video can be challenged in any of a number of ways as to it's reliability, starting with the driver who, according to the article I read, said he was there 5-7 minutes. the press convinced the American people that Iraq was a danger to us. the press is so unreliable in presenting accurate, reliable facts as to make the notion laughable. Now come on. Who said anything about the press? The facts are those given out my the STL PD, coroners office, cell phone records and the video. And it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell that convinced the American public that Iraq was a danger to us. Not the press.

dude, you have to give Hancock's Dad's lawyer a call since you are obviously a fact witness in this case. me thinks you should rethink your user name. The police released videotape of the crash, which showed a fair amount of traffic that night. http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05/02/surveillance-video-of-josh-hancock-crash-released/ I didn't know that, and that's why I asked the other question. I haven't looked into this story extensive, but I understand there is evidence the tow truck was there because the stalled car was cutoff by another car. there is also a dispute as to how long the tow truck was there, but some evidence shows it was there for 15 minutes. I believe the video showed the tow truck driver was there less than 5 minutes before the accident. More like 3 minutes if I remember the video correctly. The tow truck driver had his flashing lights going. The tow truck driver saw the Hancock automobile approaching at a high rate of speed and out of desperation the tow truck driver was honking his horn trying to alert the oncoming vehicle. To me, if the tow truck driver could see the oncoming Hancock vehicle with no flashing lights I see no reason why Hancock should not have seen a huge tow truck with flashing lights. Unless he was distracted (cell phone), intoxicated, or both. The police had been called but according to the STL police chielf had not arrived on the scene yet. Those are the facts the STL PD have released. The only indisputable facts are that Hanckock was talking on the cell phone, was intoxicated, was in possession of illegal drugs, and was speeding.

because lord knows bringing frivilous lawsuits is such an ease way to become rich....no, wait, upon further review, it's a quick way to go bankrupt and get disbarred. Right...there is no such thing as ambulance chasing lawyers. I actually dispute that there are many, but that's not what I am talking about anyway. there's smarmy lawyers out there, as there are smarms in any profession, but from my experience there are alot more smarms in the insurance defense end of things as opposed to personal injury lawyers. you implied that there are lawyers out there that will bring lawsuits when there is not a case. that statement in and of itself says to me that you don't have any actual knowledge of the legal profession, but instead base your assessment on what you've heard in popular culture. the vast majority of personal injury lawyers work on a contingency basis. in other words, they don't make a dime if they don't win. while the client is usually responsible for costs of the suit, most of those clients have injuries that impair their ability to earn a living and don't have the out of pocket money to cover these costs. so who puts up the money to pursue the case? their lawyer does. and if that lawyer loses, rare is the instance when they collect the costs of suit from their clients. so in summary, filing a frivolous lawsuit will generally lead to the lawyer paying out, and having nothing coming in. you do the math. what lawyers in Illinois must do when they file the lawsuits on behalf of their clients is sign a certification stating the case is has a legitimate basis in fact and law, in other words, they swear to the courts that the case is not frivolous. since most lawyers practice in limited venues, the judges and defense lawyers will get word when a lawyer is filing multiple frivolous claims. this will lead to their being reported to the bar for sanctions or disbarment. what also must be understood is the way the case law and statutes have changed over the years to favor defendants. it has become harder and harder over the past three decades for a plaintiff to get full recovery even when his case is sound. thus, insurance companies stopped settling "nuisance" lawsuits and claims long ago and fight just about every claim to the hilt. guys, their is no more truth to the alleged 'litigation crisis' as there is to 'Saddam Hussein was involved in 911.' it's PR, not truth, and if there is a shred of truth to this myth, it is more likely caused by those responsible for the myth, the insurance companies themselves. the dockets are absolutely clogged with cases where the insurance company has no legitimate defense (other than maybe whore doctors) but refuses to settle because they know these injured people will give up and get what they can get now simply because they have hungry children at home. Hey jjgman21, thanks for the informative and civil post. I know what you are saying and the point is well taken. To me though this, given the information that we have been provided with, still reeks of Hancock's family trying to cash out over his death. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

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. LOL In other words...you have no experience at all.

because lord knows bringing frivilous lawsuits is such an ease way to become rich....no, wait, upon further review, it's a quick way to go bankrupt and get disbarred. Right...there is no such thing as ambulance chasing lawyers.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Let that be a lesson to you. Make sure your car doesn't breakdown and if it does...hop out in traffic whizzing by at 70 mph and push your car through the traffic over to the side. :shock: I really hope a judge throws this suit in the can where it belongs but I'll bet that doesn't happen.

and here it is Rule 2.00 (Catch) Comment: A catch is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball. which brings me back to my original question, how on earth do two runners both leave early. I have a hard time believing the events described above happened to anyone other than a Cubs team. I'd guess that both runners probably took off thinking the ball was not going to be caught.