Josh Hancock's Father Files Suit

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

[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.