Josh Hancock's Father Files Suit

KSigkid · #1 05-24-2007, 03:34 PM

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

This is already nasty, and I think it's just going to get nastier.

#2 05-24-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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

This is already nasty, and I think it's just going to get nastier.

I mean, I know that they can technically sue the establishment that served him, but what's the precedent for that? How often is the establishment found at fault? And including the driver of the stalled car and the tow truck operator? That to me is overkill.

What will be real interesting is if the owners of the bar testify that Hancock was drunk when he arrived at the bar.

Kitso
KS 361

AlexMack · #3 05-24-2007, 05:18 PM

That's the most ridiculous lawsuit I've ever seen. Are they going to sue whatever divine being they believe is up there for not intervening?

PM_Mama00 · #4 05-24-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AggieSigmaNu361

I mean, I know that they can technically sue the establishment that served him, but what's the precedent for that? How often is the establishment found at fault? And including the driver of the stalled car and the tow truck operator? That to me is overkill.

What will be real interesting is if the owners of the bar testify that Hancock was drunk when he arrived at the bar.

Kitso
KS 361

I don't understand how the tow truck operator is at fault at all. It's Hancock's fault for getting blasted and then getting in a car to drive... with marijuana on him. Smart guy.

My favorite line is this "The Cardinals and Major League Baseball were not listed as defendants."

KSig RC · #5 05-24-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AggieSigmaNu361

I mean, I know that they can technically sue the establishment that served him, but what's the precedent for that? How often is the establishment found at fault? And including the driver of the stalled car and the tow truck operator? That to me is overkill.

At twice the legal limit, it likely becomes an issue of whether the bartender 'should have' stopped serving him (or was negligent in serving him more) - basically, would the average person know he was too drunk to drink more/dangerously intoxicated, and expect he was going to drive home at the end of the night?

There is some history to these types of lawsuits, but I'm not sure what the precedent will be here - the attorneys here probably have much more background into the review etc nationwide, but maybe not in MO specifically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AggieSigmaNu361

What will be real interesting is if the owners of the bar testify that Hancock was drunk when he arrived at the bar.

Well, if they can tell this, and it can be proven he was a 'regular' . . . then that's actually really bad for the bar's case, since they may then have a 'reasonable expectation' he was driving, knew he was hammered, and thus 'should have known' that serving him was irresponsible and reckless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

I don't understand how the tow truck operator is at fault at all. It's Hancock's fault for getting blasted and then getting in a car to drive... with marijuana on him. Smart guy.

Quite a bit depends on whether this will be viewed as a comparative fault case - initial filings often name many many parties that later, after discovery/motions/etc, are dropped, so he might be lashing out a little.

It's kind of similar to the bartender/bar example, though - if the tow truck did something with reckless disregard for the safety of others, he can be found at least partially responsible for accidents that are caused. They are trying to establish that the tow truck did not follow procedures, etc for just that reason - sounds weak, but it's impossible to say w/out knowing MO law and what happened.

Dad's probably just throwing poop at the wall, but especially against the bar, a favorable case history might work out for him (or get a settlement).

(IANAL, obv)

Kevlar281 · #6 05-24-2007, 06:17 PM

I'm sure it's hard for any parent to accept that their child was responsible for their own death. Filing suit just helps to shift the blame to others.

Coramoor · #7 05-25-2007, 05:00 AM

Sounds to me like the dad is pissed off he can't ride his son's money train from Baseball, so he is doing the next best thing according to the American Dream-Sue Everyone!

KSigkid · #8 05-25-2007, 08:22 AM

All of this depends on the circumstances; the article didn't say enough about what really happened to definitely say where the liability lies. There are cases where people sue bars and restaurants for being served too many drinks, it's by no means a rare occurrence. I'm not sure of Missouri law, but I can't imagine this is the first case in MO.

There is also the issue of any damages (if there are any) being offset by Josh Hancock's negligence. I don't know Missouri's statutes on comparative negligence, but in some states, if your fault (percentage-wise) is more than the fault of the other parties, you collect nothing. (RC, I believe Iowa's statute is similar to that) In other states, the damages you collect are decreased proportionally to your fault in the situation.

But, like RC, IANAL, only a first-year law student, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Munchkin03 · #9 05-25-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coramoor

Sounds to me like the dad is pissed off he can't ride his son's money train from Baseball, so he is doing the next best thing according to the American Dream-Sue Everyone!

Hi. I think I love you. Great post.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that Hancock and his father were estranged, and the pops is just trying to milk his son in death for what he couldn't get in life. Deadbeat dads are sneaky like that.

KSigkid · #10 05-25-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Hi. I think I love you. Great post.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that Hancock and his father were estranged, and the pops is just trying to milk his son in death for what he couldn't get in life. Deadbeat dads are sneaky like that.

That was my thought as well; either that, or he was his son's "business manager," getting some money off the top.

Plus, due to recent events, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy who people who are going to drive drunk. It's sad that he died at a young age, but he contributed to the situation.

Munchkin03 · #11 05-25-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

That was my thought as well; either that, or he was his son's "business manager," getting some money off the top.

Plus, due to recent events, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy who people who are going to drive drunk. It's sad that he died at a young age, but he contributed to the situation.

Yeah, it's come out that he was in a smaller accident a few days before he got killed. Unless the tow truck driver was really negligent, Hancock isn't going to come out looking very good at all.

OneTimeSBX · #12 05-25-2007, 11:17 AM

i was thinking, if he was actually sitting at the bar, then the bartender would be at fault for continuing to serve him...as long as he seemed as though he had too many. someone mentioned earlier, he could have had some before he got there!

...but hell, as a waitress, what if he was sitting at a table with a group of people? theres no way they would know who drank what!

straight up, he was irresponsible. he is as much at fault if he got plastered at home, and then killed himself. his family is fortunate nobody else got hurt.

KSigkid · #13 05-25-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

i was thinking, if he was actually sitting at the bar, then the bartender would be at fault for continuing to serve him...as long as he seemed as though he had too many. someone mentioned earlier, he could have had some before he got there!

...but hell, as a waitress, what if he was sitting at a table with a group of people? theres no way they would know who drank what!

straight up, he was irresponsible. he is as much at fault if he got plastered at home, and then killed himself. his family is fortunate nobody else got hurt.

In tort law, there is a concept of vicarious liability, where an employer is liable for the actions of an employee if it's in the course of employment (and a couple of other factors). In cases like this, they will usually go after the restaurant/bar instead of the individuals, because the restaurant/bar will have more resources (read: cash).

You are correct though, they are lucky he did not kill anyone else while driving drunk.

NutBrnHair · #14 05-25-2007, 12:16 PM

I heard on the radio today that the bartender (daughter of the former MLB player who owns the bar) offered to provide transportation by van to Hancock and he refused. He lied and said he could walk to the "team hotel."

SnuKnight172 · #15 05-25-2007, 01:11 PM

At last check Hancock was an adult. The bar was not at fault he drank and he drove. These guys have all the money in the world and they don't know what to do with themselves. I think this is why they lean toward Alchohol and Drugs.

The bar should have some responsibility but not be held entirely responsible. The bar should receive a fine (like when you serve alchohol the minors, if they did actually serve him after he was intoxicated) but the father should not be suing them.

I feel bad for the family but people and their lawsuits have to be checked.