Hancock's father to sue

[Mountaineer]

Shocking..I know.. xmadx


ST. LOUIS -- The father of the late St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock has filed a lawsuit, claiming that a popular restaurant continued to provide drinks to the reliever even though he was clearly intoxicated before the drunk-driving crash that killed him.

The lawsuit brought by Dean Hancock names Mike Shannon's Restaurant, which is owned by the long-time Cardinals broadcaster. It also names Shannon's daughter, who's the restaurant manager.

Police say Hancock was drunk, speeding and using a cell phone when his SUV struck the back of a tow truck in the early hours of April 29.

Also named in the lawsuit are the tow truck company and driver and the driver of the car who was getting help from the tow truck on Interstate 64.

Why not add in the city of St. Louis for the roads they provide, the oil company (because obviously they were complicit letting him fill up his tank), and the maker of his automobile. xrolleyesx

There goes personal responsbility..once again..flying....away....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2881602

[AppGuy04]

He can't mooch off his son anymore, so he's gotta get a settlement. Sad really

What he doesn't realize is that this tarnishes his son's name even further

[jstate83]

Why is this shocking.xrolleyesx

Name one incident of a star or average joe going out doing something and then DON'T BLAME SOMEONE ELSE for it.xnodx
The "It's not my fault" excuse that's been going strong since the late '80's.

[PantherRob82]

wow....stupid xsmhx

[Mountaineer]

Why is this shocking.xrolleyesx

Name one incident of a star or average joe going out doing something and then DON'T BLAME SOMEONE ELSE for it.xnodx
The "It's not my fault" excuse that's been going strong since the late '80's.

Yeah, I really don't find it all shocking..hence the xmadx and the xrolleyesx ..

:p

[BeauFoster]

I'm gonna sue Hustler for giving me carpel-tunnel.

Sorry, I briefly channeled Larry the cable guy there. Redneck retirement has been referred to as winning the lottery. I think that American retirement should now be seen as suing someone. This has gotten out of hand...

[AppGuy04]

Apparently the tow truck that he slammed into and the person who's car was being towed are all named in the lawsuit

[BigApp]

maybe he should sue tree farmers for planting the trees that produce the oxygen that allowed his son to breathe.

[Mr. C]

I guess the fact Hancock was drunk didn't have anything to do with his death. How pathetic. They ought to hang the attorney that filed this case and it should be thrown out of court. What a nuisance.

[Col Hogan]

I guess the fact Hancock was drunk didn't have anything to do with his death. How pathetic. They ought to hang the attorney that filed this case and it should be thrown out of court. What a nuisance.

To follow on, how does a lawsuit like this even make it into court? Isn't there some system of checks and balances that review lawsuits to make sure there is some merit? Or, can I simply file a lawsuit because I want to?

Serious question that I wish someone could help me understand....

[AppGuy04]

To follow on, how does a lawsuit like this even make it into court? Isn't there some system of checks and balances that review lawsuits to make sure there is some merit? Or, can I simply file a lawsuit because I want to?

Serious question that I wish someone could help me understand....

Money talks

[BeauFoster]

There was a case in North Carolina about 3 years ago where a bar owner was found liable in an alcohol-related death. Recently, in Winston-Salem, the family of a boy that was run over by a drunk news anchor filed suit against the anchor and 3 of the bars that served him before he drove.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351294431

[dbackjon]

There was a case in North Carolina about 3 years ago where a bar owner was found liable in an alcohol-related death. Recently, in Winston-Salem, the family of a boy that was run over by a drunk news anchor filed suit against the anchor and 3 of the bars that served him before he drove.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351294431


First, there is a difference between an innocent VICTIM filing a lawsuit, and the family of the drunk filing a lawsuit.

This lawsuit is ridiculus, since no one forced Hancock to drink in excess. I can see the STATE investigating the bar, to see if they violated any laws, but that is it.

[Col Hogan]

To follow on, how does a lawsuit like this even make it into court? Isn't there some system of checks and balances that review lawsuits to make sure there is some merit? Or, can I simply file a lawsuit because I want to?

Serious question that I wish someone could help me understand....


First, there is a difference between an innocent VICTIM filing a lawsuit, and the family of the drunk filing a lawsuit.

This lawsuit is ridiculus, since no one forced Hancock to drink in excess. I can see the STATE investigating the bar, to see if they violated any laws, but that is it.

jon, you captured what I failed to say in my initial post...the bar might have some liability if they did not follow the law in serving an obviously drunk person...

But in this case, the liability (I would think) should not extend to the person who was drunk and decided to drive and KILLED HIMSELF, nobody else...

And how does a judge allow a suit to be filed to include a person who had a broken car and was along the road...and the tow truck driver helping this person...xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x

[BeauFoster]

First, there is a difference between an innocent VICTIM filing a lawsuit, and the family of the drunk filing a lawsuit.

This lawsuit is ridiculus, since no one forced Hancock to drink in excess. I can see the STATE investigating the bar, to see if they violated any laws, but that is it.



I don't like it either way, but if you are going to allow the family of a person killed by a drunk driver sue, and then hold the bar accountable, you have to let the Hancock family sue. It is basically the same thing, someone drank and drove and killed a person. If it happens to be the drunk who dies, it still won't change the precedent.

[tribe_pride]

To follow on, how does a lawsuit like this even make it into court? Isn't there some system of checks and balances that review lawsuits to make sure there is some merit? Or, can I simply file a lawsuit because I want to?

Serious question that I wish someone could help me understand....

djp - anyone can file a lawsuit for whatever reason. The next part is when it can get thrown out. Generally, the defendant can file a Motion to Dismiss saying that given the facts as pled, there is no legal reason that the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff. If the defendant wins its motion and the case is thrown out, there is a chance that the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's legal fees but not always.

[dbackjon]

I don't like it either way, but if you are going to allow the family of a person killed by a drunk driver sue, and then hold the bar accountable, you have to let the Hancock family sue. It is basically the same thing, someone drank and drove and killed a person. If it happens to be the drunk who dies, it still won't change the precedent.

Actually, no, it is not the same thing.

In one case, a bar serves an obviously drunk patron. The patron goes out and kills an innocent person. That person's family can sue the patron that was drunk, and can sue (but may not win) the bar, for violating state laws. The victim and the patron are two different people.

In Hancock's case, the 'victim' is the one that committed the crime in the first place (DUI). Hancock's family should have no legal recourse. The STATE has an interest in investigating the bar, to see if it violated state laws, because it potential endangered other citizens (i.e. other motorists, pedestrians, etc).

[BeauFoster]

Actually, no, it is not the same thing.

In one case, a bar serves an obviously drunk patron. The patron goes out and kills an innocent person. That person's family can sue the patron that was drunk, and can sue (but may not win) the bar, for violating state laws. The victim and the patron are two different people.

In Hancock's case, the 'victim' is the one that committed the crime in the first place (DUI). Hancock's family should have no legal recourse. The STATE has an interest in investigating the bar, to see if it violated state laws, because it potential endangered other citizens (i.e. other motorists, pedestrians, etc).



I can't see the difference between the family of a 23 year-old who is struck and killed and the family of a 29 year-old who is killed. Sure, he was killed because of his own actions, but the bar served him, making the bar liable.

[Marcus Garvey]

I can't see the difference between the family of a 23 year-old who is struck and killed and the family of a 29 year-old who is killed. Sure, he was killed because of his own actions, but the bar served him, making the bar liable.

You're blind then. The 29 year old in question was engaging in criminal behavior! That's like an armed robber being gunned down attempting to rob a store, only he fires his gun, the bullet ricochets, hits him, and kills him. Then the family sues the store!

[BeauFoster]

You're blind then. The 29 year old in question was engaging in criminal behavior! That's like an armed robber being gunned down attempting to rob a store, only he fires his gun, the bullet ricochets, hits him, and kills him. Then the family sues the store!



That is still not the issue that I am adressing. I am adressing the fact that bars have been found liable for serving more drinks to patrons who are obviously intoxicated. Doing so is against the law. If they do that, they can and have been found liable in civil court.

[dbackjon]

That is still not the issue that I am adressing. I am adressing the fact that bars have been found liable for serving more drinks to patrons who are obviously intoxicated. Doing so is against the law. If they do that, they can and have been found liable in civil court.

By victims. Hancock is NOT a victim. That is the difference.

[BeauFoster]

By victims. Hancock is NOT a victim. That is the difference.


Then why does the 23 year old adult's parents have the right to sue? They aren't the victim either.

[GannonFan]

Agreed with the earlier points - if the bar knowingly served a drunk person, or served someone they should've known was drunk, then they can be liable if such a law exists in that state. And the tow truck driver (and even the disabled motorist) could be liable if they acted negligently in removing the car from the roadway. I'm not sure the driver can be found negligent for having his car breakdown, but you do need to remove it from the road. I don't know the details of what the tow truck driver or the driver did or did not do, but they could be held liable if they were negligent.

[Marcus Garvey]

That is still not the issue that I am adressing. I am adressing the fact that bars have been found liable for serving more drinks to patrons who are obviously intoxicated. Doing so is against the law. If they do that, they can and have been found liable in civil court.

I'm not disputing that. But you asked the differnce between the victim and the criminal and I clarified.

Regardless this lawsuit stinks like hell. The family is clearly trying to shakedown anybody involved for some money. The fact that the tow truck driver and disabled car's driver are mentioned in the suit tell me that. I can understand going after the bar...

News flash Mr. Hancock: Your son was a douch-bag who was in denial about his drinking! He put others at risk without any regard! I consider it good fortune that only he died in that wreck!

[Ivytalk]

Agreed with the earlier points - if the bar knowingly served a drunk person, or served someone they should've known was drunk, then they can be liable if such a law exists in that state. And the tow truck driver (and even the disabled motorist) could be liable if they acted negligently in removing the car from the roadway. I'm not sure the driver can be found negligent for having his car breakdown, but you do need to remove it from the road. I don't know the details of what the tow truck driver or the driver did or did not do, but they could be held liable if they were negligent.

Brilliant! Would you like a job at Ivytalk, Steinmetz?;) :p

[BeauFoster]

I'm not disputing that. But you asked the differnce between the victim and the criminal and I clarified.

Regardless this lawsuit stinks like hell. The family is clearly trying to shakedown anybody involved for some money. The fact that the tow truck driver and disabled car's driver are mentioned in the suit tell me that. I can understand going after the bar...

News flash Mr. Hancock: Your son was a douch-bag who was in denial about his drinking! He put others at risk without any regard! I consider it good fortune that only he died in that wreck!



I see where you are coming from and we weren't seeing eye to eye on it. I should have clarified on where I failed to make a distinction, that was my bad. xrolleyesx

The fact remains that this country has become way to sue happy. Too many people are not willing to work for anything anymore and it shows with stunts like this. FWIW, I don't think it should be the bar's responibility to police the patrons. How can we expect a bartender/wait-person (more PC bull crap there!) to know if a patron is over the legal limit. I have been plastered before and had people tell me that they couldn't tell if I was drunk.

[dbackjon]

Agreed with the earlier points - if the bar knowingly served a drunk person, or served someone they should've known was drunk, then they can be liable if such a law exists in that state. And the tow truck driver (and even the disabled motorist) could be liable if they acted negligently in removing the car from the roadway. I'm not sure the driver can be found negligent for having his car breakdown, but you do need to remove it from the road. I don't know the details of what the tow truck driver or the driver did or did not do, but they could be held liable if they were negligent.


Brilliant! Would you like a job at Ivytalk, Steinmetz?;) :p

This is why lawyers have bad reps :D. Legally, the Tow Truck Driver, and possibly even the motorist might have a tiny bit of negligence, but that negligence in no way absolves Hancock of liability. The only way that it could would be if they acted in such a way that an un-impaired motorist would have struck the vehicle in question. Even then, you would have to prove that the car/tow truck driver were acting in a negligent manner - i.e. no flares out if car is in a blind area, etc, no attempt to remove it from the roadway.

[BeauFoster]

Exactly, what if the tow truck and car were on the road, completly blacked out. I think I remember hearing something about a vehicle being abandoned partially on a highway, and causing a wreck. The owner was found liable for the damage. I will try to find a link somewhere (not likely to happen)

[GannonFan]

This is why lawyers have bad reps :D. Legally, the Tow Truck Driver, and possibly even the motorist might have a tiny bit of negligence, but that negligence in no way absolves Hancock of liability. The only way that it could would be if they acted in such a way that an un-impaired motorist would have struck the vehicle in question. Even then, you would have to prove that the car/tow truck driver were acting in a negligent manner - i.e. no flares out if car is in a blind area, etc, no attempt to remove it from the roadway.

Exactly my point, I don't know the details of what they did. I don't think this removes the issue of Hancock being drunk, and we don't have the test results back on the marijuana, and we was driving while talking on a cell-phone, but hopefully for the tow truck driver and the car owner's sake they did enough to reasonably remove the vehicle from harms way or they will be liable to some extent.

[Col Hogan]

djp - anyone can file a lawsuit for whatever reason. The next part is when it can get thrown out. Generally, the defendant can file a Motion to Dismiss saying that given the facts as pled, there is no legal reason that the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff. If the defendant wins its motion and the case is thrown out, there is a chance that the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's legal fees but not always.

Thank you...xthumbsupx

So, there is a check...it just comes after the lawyer makes the news release that the lawsuit is being filed and get the publicity. That I can live with.....

[mcveyrl]

This is why lawyers have bad reps :D. Legally, the Tow Truck Driver, and possibly even the motorist might have a tiny bit of negligence, but that negligence in no way absolves Hancock of liability. The only way that it could would be if they acted in such a way that an un-impaired motorist would have struck the vehicle in question. Even then, you would have to prove that the car/tow truck driver were acting in a negligent manner - i.e. no flares out if car is in a blind area, etc, no attempt to remove it from the roadway.

You just got struck from Ivytalk's jury. :D :D

So, what if the Plaintiff could prove that the bar, driver and tow truck operator were operating negligently, even a little bit (which he has probably done in his Complaint)? The law says that you also look at the comparative fault of Hancock. That's a question of fact, which, under our system is decided by a jury (assuming that the facts are such that a reasonable jury would have to find that Hancock is more than 50% at fault).

Probably no Motion to Dismiss on the pleadings (a demurrer in Va.) here. Chances are the dad has carried his burden in the Complaint (which is not particularly hard to do in negligence cases). More than likely a Motion for Summary Judgment will be filed after some discovery, but those are hard to win in car accident cases.

I don't know that the defense attorneys want to risk taking this to a jury. The tow truck driver and car driver are probably safe, but some people hate bars that serve drunks more than the drunks...I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of settlement come out of this from the bar.

[mcveyrl]

Thank you...xthumbsupx

So, there is a check...it just comes after the lawyer makes the news release that the lawsuit is being filed and get the publicity. That I can live with.....

Yea, the joke in law school was that the answer to "Can you sue somebody for that?" was always "You can sue for whatever you want."

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on what side you are on) the checks are minimal in negligence cases. See the above post for my prediction.

[Eyes of Old Main]

There might be some liability against the bar, but filing suit against the tow truck company, the driver and even the driver of the car the tow truck was asisting is not only over-the-top, but also offensive and frivolous. My guess is that a judge is going to throw those out, but I betthe bar's insurance company will settle for "an undisclosed sum".

[Fresno St. Alum]

the rule in Missouri is that the bar would have to have forced him to drink to be liable. It was being talked about on PTI today.

Case of a pissed dad pointing fingers at everyone else and not looking at his son being the reason.

[AppGuy04]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Arlx_FgdAQrNZchAVxykCmoRvLYF?slug=ap-hancockinvestigation&prov=ap&type=lgns

Investigation finds no evidence restaurant illegally served Hancock

[BeauFoster]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Arlx_FgdAQrNZchAVxykCmoRvLYF?slug=ap-hancockinvestigation&prov=ap&type=lgns

Investigation finds no evidence restaurant illegally served Hancock



You're kidding! xeekx


Hopefully this one will be thrown out soon.

[AppGuy04]

You're kidding! xeekx


Hopefully this one will be thrown out soon.

we can only hope

[Cleets]

You just got struck from Ivytalk's jury. :D :D

So, what if the Plaintiff could prove that the bar, driver and tow truck operator were operating negligently, even a little bit (which he has probably done in his Complaint)? The law says that you also look at the comparative fault of Hancock. That's a question of fact, which, under our system is decided by a jury (assuming that the facts are such that a reasonable jury would have to find that Hancock is more than 50% at fault).

Probably no Motion to Dismiss on the pleadings (a demurrer in Va.) here. Chances are the dad has carried his burden in the Complaint (which is not particularly hard to do in negligence cases). More than likely a Motion for Summary Judgment will be filed after some discovery, but those are hard to win in car accident cases.

I don't know that the defense attorneys want to risk taking this to a jury. The tow truck driver and car driver are probably safe, but some people hate bars that serve drunks more than the drunks...I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of settlement come out of this from the bar.

This is what you get when:
Lawyers create a system that is checked and balanced by other Lawyers and by Judges who are former lawyers...

I never met a lawyer who didn't consider himself to be honorable:
yet we get this... and in some long pompous series of blathering insanities they find a way to explain it

and excuse it...

on with the show (start clown music)
insert picture of courtroom full of monkeys in three piece suites

shameful
but that's just my opinion...

[PantherRob82]

rediculous.

[Mr. C]

the rule in Missouri is that the bar would have to have forced him to drink to be liable. It was being talked about on PTI today.

Case of a pissed dad pointing fingers at everyone else and not looking at his son being the reason.
Maybe the dad should have taught his son to drink responsibly, or not at all. Josh Hancock obviously had a very serious drinking problem that was starting to raise some concerns. I wonder what the dad modeled to his son about drinking. If he is questioning everyone else, time to start pointing some fingers at the parents here.

[Mr. C]

An honest question for the many attorneys who post on here:

What would you do if someone like Mr. Hancock approached you about filing a law suit in a case like this? Would you take the case, or would you try to talk him out of filing it?

[blackfordpu]

Any news, is he still going through with it?

[mcveyrl]

An honest question for the many attorneys who post on here:

What would you do if someone like Mr. Hancock approached you about filing a law suit in a case like this? Would you take the case, or would you try to talk him out of filing it?

Okay, I'll be the first to put myself out there.

I would at least investigate it. I think this lawsuit was a little premature. I'm not sure how much real investigation you can get done in that amount of time.

Probably would stay away from the tow truck driver and other driver, BUT if you're going to file suit, I think prudence has you sue everybody. Many on here might say it's frivolous, but what happens if a year into the lawsuit we find out the tow truck driver was drunk and the other driver could've pulled his car out of the way initially, but chose to leave it in the road. Now I'm on the hook for malpractice because I let the statute of limitations run on the claims against them. We know Hancock was drunk, but we do not know all the other facts.

That said, wrongful death cases are tough. Even when there's clear liability. They're doubly tough when being brought by a parent. You really need to make sure that the parent knows what they're getting into. The loss, IMO, is stretched out and multiplied exponentially. Then, if you win a million dollars, what are you going to do? Woo-hoo! I profitted from my child's death. This may sound strange coming from a lawyer, but a lot of times people file lawsuits hoping it will help their pain when it only increases it. With the issues of liability here, I would steer him clear of a lawsuit.

[mcveyrl]

This is what you get when:
Lawyers create a system that is checked and balanced by other Lawyers and by Judges who are former lawyers...

I never met a lawyer who didn't consider himself to be honorable:
yet we get this... and in some long pompous series of blathering insanities they find a way to explain it

and excuse it...

on with the show (start clown music)
insert picture of courtroom full of monkeys in three piece suites

shameful
but that's just my opinion...

So did you read my post or was this some blanket response you've got on your computer?

I explained the legal ramifications of what was going on. And, I believe your Harvard brethren Ivytalk agrees with me. I didn't excuse or apologize for anybody. By the way, in my post, the ultimate check is the jury.

And, as I stated above, we probably don't know all the facts here. How would you feel if this would've happened regardless of whether Hancock was drunk? You're all assuming that just because he was drunk he's the only one in the wrong. The lawsuit will (hopefully) aid the investigation. Although I think some more investigation should've gone in before the filing of this suit. Again, I don't know if I would've taken this case, I was just explaining how I thought it would go.

Honest question: How would you prefer we ran our legal system?

[AppGuy04]

It's sad but true. When lawyers take cases like this, it makes the whole profession look bad

[ngineer]

So did you read my post or was this some blanket response you've got on your computer?

I explained the legal ramifications of what was going on. And, I believe your Harvard brethren Ivytalk agrees with me. I didn't excuse or apologize for anybody. By the way, in my post, the ultimate check is the jury.

And, as I stated above, we probably don't know all the facts here. How would you feel if this would've happened regardless of whether Hancock was drunk? You're all assuming that just because he was drunk he's the only one in the wrong. The lawsuit will (hopefully) aid the investigation. Although I think some more investigation should've gone in before the filing of this suit. Again, I don't know if I would've taken this case, I was just explaining how I thought it would go.

Honest question: How would you prefer we ran our legal system?

Bingo! Everyone wants to dump on the lawyers, but the people don't want to look in the mirror and blame people for delivering verdicts based solely on sympathy and not the law. IF we are a country where our system of justice is to be determined by THE PEOPLE, then the quality of the justice is reflected in the quality of the people. No one wants to have our legal decisions determined by a computer..(who would right the program, anyway?).

There is clearly not enough information known for us to be throwing all sorts of opinions on the validity of a suit. First, each state's laws are different relating to dram shop liability. Some states have comparative negligence, some have pure contributory negligence. Most with comparative negligence provide that IF you can show that the cause of the accident was not more than 50% on the Plaintiff, then you recover at least 50% of the damages. Therefore if the economic potential of a case is several million, the key is determining the percentage of liability of the known three defendants (bar, tow truck, disabled car owner) against that of the defendant. The idea behind dram shop liability is that if a patron is VISIBLY intoxicated, it is presumed the patron is no longer capable of rationally determining if he had too much to drink. Therefore, the duty on the bar to cut him off and call the patron a cab. But considering the economic potential, I think a lot of people will take a shot at 50% of several million.

Again, there are a lot unknowns, but as pointed out above, a lot of investigation would be needed to determine whether there is a good faith basis for suing any one of the parties. In federal court, under Rule 11, sanctions can be imposed if shown that a suit was brought frivilously (i.e. without basis in fact or supportable by law). Each state is different with their own rules on this issue...I think I 'll take a break..xreadx xsmashx