This is absolutely PATHETIC

[ChiefsFan4Life]

Check out this article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

Summary:

Hancock's father files suit
Restaurant, towing company, stalled car driver sued

Are you freakin kidding me? Is this not one of the most ridiculous things ever? How in god's name are you going to sue the tow truck driver and the guy with the STALLED car?

Look - it sucks the guy is dead, but he was DRIVING DRUNK. This lawsuit should be as quick as possible.

This makes me sick. What a pathetic father/family for doing this. Why don't they just face the fact their son was a complete drunk and brought this upon himself?

[Ultra Peanut]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

It was one of those cooking sherry gravies, I guess.

You wouldn't be making jokes if he hadn't played for the Cardinals!

*sniffle*

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

Actually Phil,

Hancock's family has a decent chance of getting an award. Yes, Hancock bears primary responsibility for his death. Yet, its pretty clear the restaurant was serving an obviously drunk guy. The restaurant could have refused to serve him or tried to call him a cab.

And a tow truck driver not putting out flares on a highway around a hazard is pretty negligent, especially for a guy in the business of towing cars.

Consequently, the family has a decent shot of getting a jury to believe that the restaurant and tow truck driver were about 15% at fault.

Under pure comparitive liability, that means they could get about 15% of a wrongful death award (which would be his remaining earning capacity). Those expected future earnings are likely to be quite big for a MLB player.

The case is also in St. Louis, a very favorable juristicition for plaintiffs if its tried in St. Louis county.

That is soooooo ****ed up. Dude was drunk, stoned and talking on his effing cell phone. Those three factors combined should be enough to absolve anyone else from any responsibility. He would've probably hit something else sooner or later. And since when are bartenders required to babysit people?

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

Yet, its pretty clear the restaurant was serving an obviously drunk guy.

I've been obviously drunk in a lot of places and never once has someone tried to refuse to serve me. Maybe he should have known when to say
"I've had enough" and to stop drinking them.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by Mr. Carlson the Bugeater

Dude was drunk, stoned and talking on his effing cell phone. Those three factors combined should be enough to absolve anyone else from any responsibility.

Bingo. Case closed. Go home. You don't get any money. You should feel lucky he didn't kill anyone else.

[Ultra Peanut]

Well shit, Mac, I'll take the rest of the money if $7,500,000 is enough for you.

[Pushead2]

If this family gets one cent because of thier son's STUPID , DRUNK and did I mention STUPID adventure into a F****** vent at a hotel this would be the biggest botch ever!!!!!!!

[JohnnyV13]

Of course,

We are only hearing about the plaintiff's side. The restaurant could have any number of defenses. For example, Hancock could have habitually ordered drinks for a lot of other people, so a large bar tab would not raise any red flags about his consumption. Or, Hancock could have told them that he wasn't driving or they asked if they could call him a cab and he refused.

Any of these actions would pretty much nullify their liability. Now the tow truck company is in a much worse position. Not putting flares around a highway road hazard at night is pretty negligent, and could certainly be a factor in the accident.

This case does raise an interesting point. I believe it might be a good idea if the Missouri legislature write a statute that a drunk driver waives any tort claim against other drivers simply by being on the road while intoxicated.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

I've been obviously drunk in a lot of places and never once has someone tried to refuse to serve me. Maybe he should have known when to say
"I've had enough" and to stop drinking them.

Plow, what would you think of the bar's actions if a guy got wasted in their establishment after winning a "shots til' you drop" contest, the owner personally helped him walk to his car because he was too drunk to stand and then watched as he drove off. The bar frequently holds "drinking contests", which increases the bar's nightly take to 3X normal.

The drunk driver then plows into you, killing your infant son. THe drunk driver has no insurance and is unemployed. What do you think of the bar's actions then?

THe problem here is tha bar is profiting from knowingly putting innocent 3rd parties at risk from their drunk patrons.

[kc rush]

When this first happened I thought that I read that the restaurant had offered to call a cab.

Also, didn't the towtruck have his flashing lights on? The ones that look like police lights. Isn't that enough of a warning? I guess I could see needing flares if the stalled car was on the other side of a hill.

[Sure-Oz]

The truth is he was drunk and hit innocent bystanders, what a dumbass father, grieve and move on

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

Plow, what would you think of the bar's actions if a guy got wasted in their establishment after winning a "shots til' you drop" contest, the owner personally helped him walk to his car because he was too drunk to stand and then watched as he drove off. The bar frequently holds "drinking contests", which increases the bar's nightly take to 3X normal.

The drunk driver then plows into you, killing your infant son. THe drunk driver has no insurance and is unemployed. What do you think of the bar's actions then?

THe problem here is tha bar is profiting from knowingly putting innocent 3rd parties at risk from their drunk patrons.

Are you suggesting that he was in a drinking contest that night and the bar owner walked him to his car? If not, then what the **** was all that stupid babbling about?

[Chief Chief]

"...to know what really took place...the late Roger Hornbeck is the only one who knows for sure."

I seriously doubt that a %#<&-faced drunk would have any idea what the ^?&+ he was doing for sure.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Are you suggesting that he was in a drinking contest that night and the bar owner walked him to his car? If not, then what the **** was all that stupid babbling about?

No,

Its called a hypothetical. Its a situation designed to test the idea that "bars/restaurants shouldn't bear any responsibility for serving drunk people". A lot of people seem to have problems with the idea that a bar should have some responsibility. That doesn't mean a bar/restaurant is guilty every time someone gets drunk and drives. What it does mean is they have to take reasonable action to stop that behavior.

Certainly there are a number of emotionally manufactured elements. For example I have an "infant death", which creates an emotional bias. I also had a fact situation that left no room to argue the bar owner wasn't aware or left no way for the victim to be at fault.

The line at the end is the basic principle that drives the liability of bar/restaurants with respect to drunk people. Basically, if there is no financial deterrent to creating drunk drivers, then profit maximization would lead bars to do everything they could to make sure EVERYONE drives home wasted.

The "personal responsiblity" crowd would entirely blame the drunk. While certainly this view has some merit in terms of governing your own behavior, its sort of like saying that because the mark in a con game is stupid, then we shouldn't punish the con artist.

That view would simply encourage people to run con games.