Dead drunk driver's father sues others.

[ejs]

I can sort of understand suing the bar that kept serving him. But to sue the driver of the stalled car and the tow truck driver? Ridiculous! I can only imagine how Mr Hancock feels losing a child, but he might need to consider that his son was actually at fault.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/05/24/hancock.lawsuit.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- The father of Josh Hancock filed suit Thursday, claiming a restaurant provided drinks to the St. Louis Cardinals relief pitcher even though he was intoxicated prior to the crash that killed him.

The suit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court by Dean Hancock of Tupelo, Miss., does not specify damages. Mike Shannon's Restaurant, owned by the longtime Cardinals broadcaster who starred on three World Series teams in the 1960s, is a defendant in the case along with Shannon's daughter, Patricia Shannon Van Matre, the restaurant manager.

Other defendants include Eddie's Towing, the company whose flatbed tow truck was struck by Hancock's sport utility vehicle in the early hours of April 29; tow truck driver Jacob Edward Hargrove; and Justin Tolar, the driver whose stalled car on Interstate 64 was being assisted by Hargrove.

The Cardinals and Major League Baseball were not listed as defendants.

Authorities said the 29-year pitcher had a blood content of nearly twice the legal limit for alcohol in his system when he crashed into the back of the tow truck. He was also speeding, using a cell phone and wasn't wearing a seat belt, Police Chief Joe Mokwa said after the accident. Marijuana also was found in the SUV.

Mokwa said Hancock went to Shannon's not long after the Cardinals played a day game against the Chicago Cubs on April 28. The lawsuit claimed that Hancock was a regular at the restaurant bar and was there for more than 31/2 hours.

"It's understood that for the entire 31/2 hours that Josh Hancock was there that he was handed drinks," Keith Kantack, a lawyer for Dean Hancock, said. "It's our understanding that from the moment Josh Hancock entered Mike Shannon's that night that he was never without a drink."

<<see link for remainder of article>>

[jesvet]

Who exactly contributed to his untimely, unnecessary death more than the man with pot in his car, who chose to drive drunk, and was speeding without a seatbelt? This kind of suit is so upsetting.

[artist]

:rolleyes:

How stupid! If you are an adult with a driver's license and of legal age to drink, it is YOUR responsibility to use your head! I honestly don't think even the bartender or bar deserves to be sued.

Honestly, how often have any of you been to a bar that is EXTREMELY crowded and busy, where you seriously have to stand there at the bar for about 20 minutes waving your money around WAITING for the bartender to FINALLY take your order which you have to SHOUT so they can hear you over the really loud band? In that scenario, the bartender is so busy just trying to keep up with the orders, he/she can barely tell how drunk someone is. Therefore, if I were to go to a bar like that and get plastered and then be stupid enough to drive around, that would be my fault.

And really, if I am going to get drunk ANYWHERE and drive around, that is ALWAYS my fault. I think the only scenario where it wouldn't be would be if someone drugged me without my knowledge.

I also think it woud be irresponsible for an adult to throw a kegger party and invite a bunch of kids to it. However, I think when I was in college, I threw a couple of parties (NOT keggers, just parties with maybe 20-40 or so people...mostly invited people I knew) and a couple of times some "kid" would show up, ALREADY drunk, with his/her OWN alcohol. Maybe in retrospect this was stupid, but honestly rather then send this person out the door to avoid getting into trouble, I felt it was almost safer to keep the "kid" at the party and keep a close watch on that person. Lord knows I did NOT want to get sued because some irresponsible "kid" showed up ALREADY drunk to my party and was NOT invited in the first place. (In particular I am thinking of a smallish party I once had where this wild 17 year old Catholic school girl showed up with her own bottle of vodka in her backpack. I did know who she was since she frequented the same coffee shop, but no, I did not invite her. I don't think anyone did really. I think she just sort of found out about it or overheard that it was happening. Once she arrived, what was I supposed to do? Let her walk alone in the dark and get assaulted? Let her drive a car and kill someone or herself? Call her parents? So, ALL of us there kept a careful eye on her and tried to make sure she was safe.)

[ellidew]

This is ridiculous. Obviously it's big news in Stl so we've been hearing all about it. His father just looks like an ass. I can't believe he is suing the driver of the stalled car! If i was the driver of that car or the tow company i'd sue the family of Josh Hancock right back! HE'S the one that made the bad decisions that night!

[dionysia]

Artist,
Your points are (mostly) well-taken, but I bet you that Josh was paid a lot of attention to, being the Cardinals pitcher.

Anyway, bars & bartenders can be held legally responsible for serving intoxicated customers. (I am too busy to look up the exact info.)

In any case, suing the tow truck driver and the driver of the stalled car is absolute bullshit.

Di

[diam124]

I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous.

[Ericka_Jarett]

I can understand him trying to sue the restaurant, but the tow driver and the stalled car is just stupidity.

It's his son that could have said to the drinks, "I have had enough, let me have some coffee" His son is the one that chose to drive drunk. It's his son that hit the tow truck; if it wasn't the truck, he could have hit a tree, another car or heck even another person.

Father needs to wake up and see that placing blame on others is unfortunately, not going to bring back his son. His son's actions were stupid that evening and unfortunately his family has to live without him now. I know losing a child is not easy and I know what it's like to want to place blame on others for your child's death. In this case, his son is an adult and knew what he was suppose to and not suppose to do.

I do feel bad for the family and hope that things are cleared up quickly.

[coquelicot]

In any case, suing the tow truck driver and the driver of the stalled car is absolute bullshit.
This is my opinion in a nutshell. The stalled car was there by circumstance; he didn't choose to stall there. The driver of the tow truck was trying to be a Good Samaritan and bail him out. The majority of the fault lies on the drunk driver, with perhaps some responsibility to the bar. The drunk CHOSE to drink all those drinks, get behind the wheel, not wear a seat belt, and use a cell phone while driving. I hope the judge has enough sense to throw this case out.

At best, the dad is acting out of sheer desperation, grief, and denial. At worst, he's a money-hungry SOB.

This part of the dad's quote gets me:

"including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death."

I still have to see how the tow-truck driver and the stalled car contributed to the death. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Niobe]

Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Hancock, was your precious (and DRUNK) son not properly whisked down the road in a magic bubble that bounces other cars away from him?

What an asshole. I hope the drivers of the stalled car and tow truck sue him for improper parenting or some stupid crap like that. :rolleyes:

Unless Mr. Hancock is alleging that his son was tied up and had a beer bong physically shoved down his throat, he needs to remember that his son was a grown adult. And also that his son wasn't special and other cars are allowed on the road while he's driving.

Seriously, I can not get over what an entitled jackass this guy is. No wonder his son thought it was fine to drunkenly speed down the road in his SUV on a cell phone.

[AttyGrl74]

While I agree that it is kind of ridiculous, it is a common legal ploy to name anyone and everyone even remotely associated as a defendant.

Because the primary defendants, those associated with the restaurant, are going to point fingers at the owner of the stalled car, the tow truck driver, etc., it is useful to name them as a defendant from the get-go.

[Koala_Gurl]

This is what make me sick over our legal system. I am all for providing rights to innocent, but how do we draw the line?

Wake me up when people start actually taking responsiblity for their own actions.

I think it is horrible that even the bar/restaurant is being named. Sure they provided drinks, but no one seemed to hold a gun to this guys head to actually drink them.

After hearing about this Lindsay Lohan thing too...just makes me mad that somehow these people (stars, celebs, athletes, etc.) think they are somehow above the law.

[imagirliegirl]

Well, it is illegal for bars to over serv and I think it is good that bars can be held responsible for over serving people. Yes, people are responsible for their own actions, but establishments also have a responsibility to stop serving if someone is over the limit.

I don't think a lawsuit is warranted in this case, but I don't see why anyone is shocked.

[Scooter]

That's ridiculous--why would anyone, including the restaurant, point fingers at the stalled car and tow truck??


I think it is horrible that even the bar/restaurant is being named. Sure they provided drinks, but no one seemed to hold a gun to this guys head to actually drink them.

It's true they decided to serve him that many drinks and can be considered at fault for that. But I think the main problem with the restaurant is they knew how many drinks he'd had and didn't step in to make sure he had a ride or to call a cab. THAT is where I think they are most negligent.

[imagirliegirl]

I think it is horrible that even the bar/restaurant is being named. Sure they provided drinks, but no one seemed to hold a gun to this guys head to actually drink them.


Of course no one forced him to drink, however, those who serve liquor are trained to be aware when someone has had too much and have an obligation to stop. You're talking about dealing with people who are probably at a point where their judgment is diminished therefore the people selling them the booze have a responsibility to do the right thing. If laws like this did not exist, bars would sell alcohol to anyone and everyone without holding a bit of the responsibility if incidents occur. That is not right. You cannot trust someone whose livelihood depends on selling alcohol anymore than you can trust the people who drink too much. It is, and should be, a partnership.

I waitressed in a bar and had to take a class to be licensed to serve. They stressed how important it is to not over serve. As a waitress, I could have been sued if I over served someone who left an got into an accident.

Bars and employees know the laws of their individual states. They should not be the least bit surprised when they get sued.

Again, I don't think a suit is warranted in this situation, but the outrage at the idea of him being able to sue is a little off to me.