Josh Hancock's Father Files Suit

[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."

[SnuKnight172]

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.

[Kevin]

Why do lawsuits need to be checked? If the lawsuit is frivolous, I have faith that the court will dismiss it. We're not privy to the exact facts of the case, but if a bar does serve an inebriated person, they are going to be liable for at least some of the damages caused by that person.

The bar probably has insurance -- or they do if they're smart.

Whether they're liable to the estate of the person who took the alcohol is going to turn on state law, but it seems like a long shot. Nevertheless, if the estate has a valid claim, it ought to be allowed to proceed to trial even if under the facts we have it looks bad. We're just not in a very good position to judge that.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why do lawsuits need to be checked? If the lawsuit is frivolous, I have faith that the court will dismiss it. We're not privy to the exact facts of the case, but if a bar does serve an inebriated person, they are going to be liable for at least some of the damages caused by that person.

The bar probably has insurance -- or they do if they're smart.

Whether they're liable to the estate of the person who took the alcohol is going to turn on state law, but it seems like a long shot. Nevertheless, if the estate has a valid claim, it ought to be allowed to proceed to trial even if under the facts we have it looks bad. We're just not in a very good position to judge that.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to have faith that courts will promote personal responsibility.

[Coramoor]

Wasn't there a case a few years ago involving TGIF and a drunk driving accident?

The drunks' family tried to sue TGIF for serving him too much alcohol but during an appeal to the SC (either state or federal) it was found to favor TGIF. Basically it was ruled that a bar/bartender cannot be found liable for some drunkasses mistakes?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

Wasn't there a case a few years ago involving TGIF and a drunk driving accident?

The drunks' family tried to sue TGIF for serving him too much alcohol but during an appeal to the SC (either state or federal) it was found to favor TGIF. Basically it was ruled that a bar/bartender cannot be found liable for some drunkasses mistakes?

If there was that decision, it maybe affected SC tort law, but I can't imagine a decision that would take away all liability from a bar/restaurant in those circumstances. Like Kevin said, it differs from state to state, but I can't imagine a regime that would lift liability like that. That's one of the things you buy liability insurance for, situations like this.

[damasa]

He should sue himself for being a bad parent who allowed his son to turn into an alcoholic!

Kidding, sorta...he might not be that bad of a father.

[macallan25]

Yeah, last time I checked Josh Hancock was an adult and a professional athlete, it's not like he was a 17 year old still living with his parents.