Josh Hancock's Father Files Suit

[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!

[KSigkid]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Total hijack - vast majority of my CF% work is out of state (obv - Iowa is a TERRIBLE venue for these kinds of lawsuits . . . see: Independence, MO or Cook Co, IL for better) but the cases I've done in IA have had damages allocated by % fault assigned to the defendant.

Actually now that I think about it, I think MO is the same way - however, that's for consumer fraud and product liability-type actions, so . . . uh, I don't know. I leave that the lawyers and stick to non-verbal communication and voodoo.

[Munchkin03]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[Honeykiss1974]

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.

This is the FIRST thing that came to mind for me too.

And although I do think that bartenders should (if possible) exercise some judgment as to if a patron has had too much to drink, I doubt if this case pans out to be one of those. And really, unless they are sitting at the bar, is there any way to monitor this? I know when I was a bartender in college, when it was busy, I could barely keep up with drink orders.

From the last article I read, he was not only drunk (twice the legal limit), had marijuana in the car (so possibly high too), talking on his cell phone, and was not wearing a seatbelt. Shoot, it’s been proven that talking on the cell phone while driving is the equivalent of driving drunk so I can't imagine how he was driving at all.

Anyway, I hope his family finds closer. I know its hard to recognize that Josh just made some bad choices which caused his demise, but suing isn't going to make it better.