Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Agree. As though the owner of the stalled car wanted someone to cut in front of him & spin him out.
Oh, and go after the good samaritan who stopped to help.
Ugly greed at its worst...
Oh, and go after the good samaritan who stopped to help.
Ugly greed at its worst...
Wonder how Hancock's family would view a situation whereby Josh had consumed alcohol at his residence, driven his car while intoxicated, then struck, and killed someone. I only pose this scenario to compare how we might view consumption at home vs. at a bar. It's a terrible incident either way. Although I lean heavily towards self responsibility, if I operated a bar, I think I would HAVE to have some safegaurds for people walking out my door.
I think its pretty standard in a law suit to name all parties involved in the accident.
As njbb says this is quite common. It’s called free enterprise. The lawyers and insurance companies will battle this out and one or the other (both in the long run) will emerge the winner. You can bet the establishment and the tow truck company has insurance to cover these types of lawsuits and the plaintiff’s attorneys are aware of this and are targeting $$$ not individuals. Welcome to Corporate America.
Fungo
Fungo
Why is it nobody wants to talk about the accident Hancock was in a few days previous ?
That is the reason he was driving a rented vehicle
That is the reason he was driving a rented vehicle
quote:Originally posted by infidel_08:
Hancock's family sues Shannon's, others
Everybody's been talking about this today, and I have yet to hear anyone who's sympathetic to the lawsuit.
Why is it always someone else's fault? Why can't the family take responsibility for Hancock's accident, no-one forced him to drink and he was not underage. Although it was a tragedy these lawsuits make me sick.
it's always tough to speak ill of the decesased. But, with that said, in this instance he was drunk, speeding, no seat belt, talking on his cell phone and initial reports say he had pot or some drug paraphenalia in his car.
And, as noted above, he had a previous drunk driving mishap a short time previously.
now though this is the fault of the restaurant, the restaurant manager and more unbelieveably his heirs are also suing the driver of the tow truck that was hit and the driver of the stalled car that the tow truck was assisting.
this is not business as usual or at least should not be. This is disgusting. this is why we pay outrageous insurance premiums and all these carriers involved will lay out tons of money in defense and maybe down the line in some nonsense settlement and ultimately, we all pick up that tab.
In the bigger picture still, this is yet another example of how we are becoming an irresponsible society where the culprit becomes the victim.
I am a trial attorney, which in this type of circumstance its tough to admit being part of this profession (ah, I guess it's always tough
). I wouldn't touch a case like this and I find it completely offensive.
DUI is a devastating crime that is taken too lightly. If you've seen the nonsense about Paris Hilton and her DUI and repeated probabtion violations, people still seem to think "one for the road" ain't no big deal
Having recently witnessed my daughter and her friends bury a high school classmate who was the victim of a drunk driver, not much tolerance for this at my end; and, in the Hancock case to then sue others for your own irresponsible acts, unbelievable.
And, as noted above, he had a previous drunk driving mishap a short time previously.
now though this is the fault of the restaurant, the restaurant manager and more unbelieveably his heirs are also suing the driver of the tow truck that was hit and the driver of the stalled car that the tow truck was assisting.
this is not business as usual or at least should not be. This is disgusting. this is why we pay outrageous insurance premiums and all these carriers involved will lay out tons of money in defense and maybe down the line in some nonsense settlement and ultimately, we all pick up that tab.
In the bigger picture still, this is yet another example of how we are becoming an irresponsible society where the culprit becomes the victim.
I am a trial attorney, which in this type of circumstance its tough to admit being part of this profession (ah, I guess it's always tough
). I wouldn't touch a case like this and I find it completely offensive.DUI is a devastating crime that is taken too lightly. If you've seen the nonsense about Paris Hilton and her DUI and repeated probabtion violations, people still seem to think "one for the road" ain't no big deal
Having recently witnessed my daughter and her friends bury a high school classmate who was the victim of a drunk driver, not much tolerance for this at my end; and, in the Hancock case to then sue others for your own irresponsible acts, unbelievable.
I'm certainly not sympathetic to the lawsuit, but I think I can understand why one would be lodged.
Of course I don't know anything about the family or their motivations, but had it been my son, I don't think I could continue on with life with just a "he did it to himself" response. I'd want to know if there was anything else, along the way, that might have prevented his death; I'd want to know exactly what happened that night. A lawsuit is probably the most objective way to attempt to get to the truth.
I also know that I would be angry. At him, at his friends for not taking his car keys, at the guy serving him more drinks, at the obstacle in the road, at the whole waste of it.
There are dram laws in MO, and I don't know that Shannon's is absolved by the offer of a cab because they continuously served him drinks for upwards of 3 hours. Hancock is a Big Boy, he could have turned down the drinks or switched to club soda. The servers and management at Shannon's are also adults; they should have abided by the dram laws and stopped serving an intoxicated patron. The laws are on the books because the same impairment that means a drinker shouldn't be driving will stop the drinker from having the sense to stop ordering drinks. Taking responsibility extends both to the drinker and to the commercial entity who knowingly made a bad situation worse.
Of course I don't know anything about the family or their motivations, but had it been my son, I don't think I could continue on with life with just a "he did it to himself" response. I'd want to know if there was anything else, along the way, that might have prevented his death; I'd want to know exactly what happened that night. A lawsuit is probably the most objective way to attempt to get to the truth.
I also know that I would be angry. At him, at his friends for not taking his car keys, at the guy serving him more drinks, at the obstacle in the road, at the whole waste of it.
There are dram laws in MO, and I don't know that Shannon's is absolved by the offer of a cab because they continuously served him drinks for upwards of 3 hours. Hancock is a Big Boy, he could have turned down the drinks or switched to club soda. The servers and management at Shannon's are also adults; they should have abided by the dram laws and stopped serving an intoxicated patron. The laws are on the books because the same impairment that means a drinker shouldn't be driving will stop the drinker from having the sense to stop ordering drinks. Taking responsibility extends both to the drinker and to the commercial entity who knowingly made a bad situation worse.
Orlando, you have an excellent point about the dram shop laws if that really and truly played into this, but also suing the stalled driver and the tow truck that was assisting the driver and was hit-can't think of any theory that supports that.
I agree, that part's a lot more tenuous, HB. IIRC, the car was sideswiped and sent into the concrete abuttment and the car wasn't drivable. But wouldn't the 'not drivable' part require some proof? I believe the law is that, except in case of serious injury or death, accident vehicles must be moved to the side of the road; this one was in the fast lane. If the car driver tried but could not get his car to move, that's one thing; if he chose not to move it becuase he was shaken up or nervous, that's something else.
It was a honking great tow truck with flashing lights that other people managed to miss & traffic was light, but how long had the tow truck been there? Was he required to put out warning flares x number of feet before the obstruction? There are some rises on I40 that obstruct a driver's view, how far in advance could a driver see the tow truck's lights? Where was the PD? Granted, it was a single car accident, but it was blocking the fast lane on a major urban highway; how did a tow truck get there before the police (who would have been more concerned with the advanced warnings to traffic than the tow truck driver who was there to pick up the car)?
I believe Hancock did this to himself. His parents didn't do it to him, and they're the ones left to cope with life without their son. Putting myself in their place, I can understand why they're just trying to "do something".
It was a honking great tow truck with flashing lights that other people managed to miss & traffic was light, but how long had the tow truck been there? Was he required to put out warning flares x number of feet before the obstruction? There are some rises on I40 that obstruct a driver's view, how far in advance could a driver see the tow truck's lights? Where was the PD? Granted, it was a single car accident, but it was blocking the fast lane on a major urban highway; how did a tow truck get there before the police (who would have been more concerned with the advanced warnings to traffic than the tow truck driver who was there to pick up the car)?
I believe Hancock did this to himself. His parents didn't do it to him, and they're the ones left to cope with life without their son. Putting myself in their place, I can understand why they're just trying to "do something".
Just to complete my thoughts on this --
Although I can understand the need to "do something", I believe this action will backfire on the Hancocks.
Should this lawsuit get to trial or even arbitration.....maybe just interogatories, the Hancock's are going to hear nasty things about their son: all the times he drank, smoked weed, drove impaired, showed irresponsibility, how his expected earnings were limited (he's a journeyman bullpen pitcher, by his numbers would he even be employed next year, etc., etc).
The comfort they said they felt from The Cardinal Family will be far behind and no factor at all.
Although I can understand the need to "do something", I believe this action will backfire on the Hancocks.
Should this lawsuit get to trial or even arbitration.....maybe just interogatories, the Hancock's are going to hear nasty things about their son: all the times he drank, smoked weed, drove impaired, showed irresponsibility, how his expected earnings were limited (he's a journeyman bullpen pitcher, by his numbers would he even be employed next year, etc., etc).
The comfort they said they felt from The Cardinal Family will be far behind and no factor at all.
quote:Originally posted by HeyBatter:
it's always tough to speak ill of the decesased. But, with that said, in this instance he was drunk, speeding, no seat belt, talking on his cell phone and initial reports say he had pot or some drug paraphenalia in his car.
The toxicology results just came out and while he had smoked pot in the past, he hadn't smoked it just prior to the accident.
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
There are dram laws in MO, and I don't know that Shannon's is absolved by the offer of a cab because they continuously served him drinks for upwards of 3 hours. Hancock is a Big Boy, he could have turned down the drinks or switched to club soda. The servers and management at Shannon's are also adults; they should have abided by the dram laws and stopped serving an intoxicated patron. The laws are on the books because the same impairment that means a drinker shouldn't be driving will stop the drinker from having the sense to stop ordering drinks. Taking responsibility extends both to the drinker and to the commercial entity who knowingly made a bad situation worse.
There's only so much a bar or restaurant can do.
One version of the story that has been reported is that he lied and said that he didn't need a cab because he was just going to walk a couple of blocks to the bar at the Westin.
The suit against the bar has a reasonable chance of success depending on the facts that emerge in regards to the owners /management.
The suit against the truck driver and stalled car driver has little chance of success depending on wether safety proceedures were followed.
The operater of a motor vehicle has the resposibility of operating his vehicle in a safe manner and should be in a position to deal with obstacles like a stalled car. I would counter sue the estate for emotional stress caused by this drunken driver and tie his estate up for years. Drunk drivers are a plague on society killing thousands of innocent people every year.
The suit against the truck driver and stalled car driver has little chance of success depending on wether safety proceedures were followed.
The operater of a motor vehicle has the resposibility of operating his vehicle in a safe manner and should be in a position to deal with obstacles like a stalled car. I would counter sue the estate for emotional stress caused by this drunken driver and tie his estate up for years. Drunk drivers are a plague on society killing thousands of innocent people every year.
The lawsuit alledges that the intoxication in this case was "INVOLUNTARY." I guess that the bartender just poured those drinks down his throat. This is nothing but greed at work. This is not a search for the truth. It is about the money. If there is any justice this will be thrown out and sanctions will be charged to the lawyer and the family.
The problem is there is too much case law on this issue that usually goes against the bar. One case a native American left a bar drunk as a skunk and was hit while walking home and killed. Ruled against thye bar. Another a sales agent was at a Xmas party and left drunk after stopping at a bar and her company Xmas party. Ruled against the host company when she was killed in an auto accident.
It appears clear that you have to take extreme measures to stop the drunks of this world from leaving while drunk.
If my son did something like that I would be ashamed and he knows it. I told him your life would be altered for ever in a flash even if you survived. I remember a case were a young man killed a young doctor while he was driving drunk. He pumped gas for a living. No insurance so you can only guess the math.
It appears clear that you have to take extreme measures to stop the drunks of this world from leaving while drunk.
If my son did something like that I would be ashamed and he knows it. I told him your life would be altered for ever in a flash even if you survived. I remember a case were a young man killed a young doctor while he was driving drunk. He pumped gas for a living. No insurance so you can only guess the math.
quote:Originally posted by njbb:
I think its pretty standard in a law suit to name all parties involved in the accident.
If so then why not include the person he was speaking with on his cell phone when the accident took place? IMO - Aside from his intoxicated state, that's the crux of the accident.
As a side note...how would you like to be THAT person???
Is the family even grieving, or do they just want money or attention?
Hancock's Dad ought to be ashamed of himself. Hancock had no one to blame but himself. I am glad only that some innocent person was not killed by this irresponsible individual who brought shame to himself, his team and his family. His father is only compounding this. I hope he loses the case and a lot of money along with it if only to discourage others from acting so cowardly.
I'm sorry people, But this Family is grieving.
And there's certain parts of the grieving process that includes anger and pain.
And that process also includes the Blame game.
Right or Wrong.
It's there pain.
Who are we to judge.
JMHO EH
And there's certain parts of the grieving process that includes anger and pain.
And that process also includes the Blame game.
Right or Wrong.
It's there pain.
Who are we to judge.
JMHO EH
The problem is two-fold:
1. Hancock was drunk and a danger to others.
2. They are now inflicting pain on others.
Why am I not surprised now that he was drunk in the first place. This was a time when the grieving process should have been kept private. It has not and the Dad, at least, has lost my sympathy.
1. Hancock was drunk and a danger to others.
2. They are now inflicting pain on others.
Why am I not surprised now that he was drunk in the first place. This was a time when the grieving process should have been kept private. It has not and the Dad, at least, has lost my sympathy.
I can't really understand how people can sit here and bash this man. I assume most of you do not know how it is to lose a child and i certainly do not either. While i do not agree with the law suit i do feel that we can't sit here and talk down about a man who is dealing with a enormous amount of pain. Just let him grieve and if this is what he needs then so be it.
"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball"
"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball"
This action could be a counter claim to one filed by the other parties.
Remember newspapers don't always tell the whole story.
Remember newspapers don't always tell the whole story.
quote:This action could be a counter claim to one filed by the other parties.
Remember newspapers don't always tell the whole story.
AND we also have to consider the old saying of --- "the best defense is a good offense."
Newspaper: something accepted as fact for the sake of convenience, although not necessariy true.
quote:Originally posted by njbb:
Remember newspapers don't always tell the whole story.
Oh my gosh! Is it true? Newspapers don't always tell the whole story! That's news to me...I'd better get the paper and read all about this!
And by the way njbb...I'm in total agreement with your statement...more than you can imagine.
According to the "news reports" The owners daughter must of known he was drunk and tried to get him to take a cab.
Maybe the family doesn't want money at all but is hopeing that a law suit would encourage (require) bar tenders to call the police when a drunk refuses to take a cab and gets behind the wheel drunk.
Maybe the family doesn't want money at all but is hopeing that a law suit would encourage (require) bar tenders to call the police when a drunk refuses to take a cab and gets behind the wheel drunk.
quote:Originally posted by LETpeteIN14:
While i do not agree with the law suit i do feel that we can't sit here and talk down about a man who is dealing with a enormous amount of pain. Just let him grieve and if this is what he needs then so be it.
I would be fine with letting him grieve, if he wasn't inflicting stress and financial duress on innocent people.
Think about the young man whose car was hit & stalled out. It was not his fault his car was stalled. How many people can come up with $100k or more to defend against a lawsuit? It's $25k up front as a minimum fee to the attorneys for a case that goes to court. And with a rich estate hiring big gun lawyers, it will take far more than the minimum to defend successfully.
How many people have $100k to throw away??? Do you? That driver will not get that money back. It is gone! To try & recover his attorney fees he will have to file his own suit, more than likely.
Do you have any idea, lpi, what kind of stress & hardship that can induce?
I'm sorry, but the grieving dad doesn't get a free pass to take this kind of deliberate action. No way.
Why don't they take any money they plan on paying the attorney's, who I am sure the little sleezes are working for a share of the take, if there is one; take that money and start an educational program for young athletes. Instead of blaming everyone but the one who caused the accident.
Auto liability insurance covers these types of law suits.
Several people on this thread are wiling to condemn Hancock's parents and play internet lawyer with only a passing knowledge of what happened on the night. It doesn't impact you, so why should you (or, apparently, the Hancok's according to you) be bothered with wanting to learning any more?
I still feel that they are trying to find out all that happened on the last day of their boy's life, just as I believe any of us here would want to know should the unthinkable happen to one of our's.
As njbb says, auto liability insurance should cover the cost of the lawsuits --- the towing company would have it, the driver probably does. And how is it that you know that those two did nothing wrong? For example, you KNOW the car that spun out -- not stalled, by the way -- was inoperable and could not have pulled out of the fast lane and on to the shoulder??
Conversely, both the company and the driver could countersue for damages or emotional distress, should MO law allow it. Or the suits against them could be found to be groundless during discovery.
I believe they were named because all entities, from the bar where he was served to the time of death should be named so as to close the door to the lawyers for Shannon's apportioning blame at the accident site.
Empathy seems to be in short supply.
I still feel that they are trying to find out all that happened on the last day of their boy's life, just as I believe any of us here would want to know should the unthinkable happen to one of our's.
As njbb says, auto liability insurance should cover the cost of the lawsuits --- the towing company would have it, the driver probably does. And how is it that you know that those two did nothing wrong? For example, you KNOW the car that spun out -- not stalled, by the way -- was inoperable and could not have pulled out of the fast lane and on to the shoulder??
Conversely, both the company and the driver could countersue for damages or emotional distress, should MO law allow it. Or the suits against them could be found to be groundless during discovery.
I believe they were named because all entities, from the bar where he was served to the time of death should be named so as to close the door to the lawyers for Shannon's apportioning blame at the accident site.
Empathy seems to be in short supply.
I am finding my empathy waning. When I first heard of the accident, I felt sadness for Josh and his family. As more and more came out about his apparent choices that night, drinking, speeding, and talking on the phone while driving, I understood how this tragedy came about.
I rationalized away some of the sadness I felt. I've seen nothing, nor could I imagine anything that could convince me that voluntary actions were not a prime contributer to the accident. I believe that all too often any and all of the bad choices made that night escape consequences. If the road had been clear that night, Josh would probably have been at the next game.
I think since many bad choices don't render immediate consequences, people tend to look for other reasons why things go horribly wrong when the cause is obvious. "It couldn't be my fault. I've done that a million times before and never had a problem."
I rationalized away some of the sadness I felt. I've seen nothing, nor could I imagine anything that could convince me that voluntary actions were not a prime contributer to the accident. I believe that all too often any and all of the bad choices made that night escape consequences. If the road had been clear that night, Josh would probably have been at the next game.
I think since many bad choices don't render immediate consequences, people tend to look for other reasons why things go horribly wrong when the cause is obvious. "It couldn't be my fault. I've done that a million times before and never had a problem."
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
Several people on this thread are wiling to condemn Hancock's parents and play internet lawyer with only a passing knowledge of what happened on the night. It doesn't impact you, so why should you (or, apparently, the Hancok's according to you) be bothered with wanting to learning any more?
I still feel that they are trying to find out all that happened on the last day of their boy's life, just as I believe any of us here would want to know should the unthinkable happen to one of our's.
As njbb says, auto liability insurance should cover the cost of the lawsuits --- the towing company would have it, the driver probably does. And how is it that you know that those two did nothing wrong? For example, you KNOW the car that spun out -- not stalled, by the way -- was inoperable and could not have pulled out of the fast lane and on to the shoulder??
Conversely, both the company and the driver could countersue for damages or emotional distress, should MO law allow it. Or the suits against them could be found to be groundless during discovery.
I believe they were named because all entities, from the bar where he was served to the time of death should be named so as to close the door to the lawyers for Shannon's apportioning blame at the accident site.
Empathy seems to be in short supply.
Several years ago a drunk driver crashed into an object that was placed, by the city, on the medium. It was some type of boulder that was placed there for "beautification" purposes.
The drunk driver did not die from the accident but will never walk again. He was awarded about 3 million dollars, the jury finding the city at fault for placing the boulder in a place without proper permits.
Some things that happen make no sense at all, and it's great to give opinions, but we are not experts to judge the laws within each state.
The drunk driver did not die from the accident but will never walk again. He was awarded about 3 million dollars, the jury finding the city at fault for placing the boulder in a place without proper permits.
Some things that happen make no sense at all, and it's great to give opinions, but we are not experts to judge the laws within each state.
Maybe if the "drunk" knucklehead wasn't driving in the median he wouldn't have hit the boulder. It's simply a society not willing to accept responsibility for it's actions. So big deal they didn't have a permit. The idiot didn't have a permit to drive in the median. Zero sympathy period.
The guy had a history of drinking problems and he was drunk while driving.
Family will embarrass itself with this lawsuit when this guy's history of drinking problems comes out.
There should be MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES FOR ALL DRUNK DRIVERS.
Family will embarrass itself with this lawsuit when this guy's history of drinking problems comes out.
There should be MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES FOR ALL DRUNK DRIVERS.
Median folks.
Just because "the law will handle it" doesn't mean it isn't up for discussion, eh?
Just because "the law will handle it" doesn't mean it isn't up for discussion, eh?