Hancock's Dad Sues Everyone

[chuckiehacks]

Link

 

I don't want this to turn into a debate on unnecessary lawsuits, but come on.

 

I can see suing the restaurant, and I suppose that includes the restaurant manager. But going after the tow truck company and driver and the driver of the disabled car on the side of the road?

 

I guess the suit against the cel phone company is next, then maybe the guy who sold him the weed. What about the hookup he was talking to on the phone? I'm sure she shares some liability, too. Maybe that shouldn't be in blue...

[TheCrew07]

I agree, whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why not sue the lady he was on the phone with for distracting him further while he was driving drunk?

[tyguy20204]

Wow this really makes me angry.

 

The only one to blame is Hancock and his incredible irresponsibility.

[patrickgpe]

he was offered a ride home, due to the fact he turned it down, is of no fault to anyone but Josh's. This story should be about personal responsibility and not running around and blaming everyone for his son getting drunk and driving.

[GAME05]

might as well sue everyone possible--increases your chances of winning one of them.

[hauser42]

What shocked me was the fact that they are sueing the guy because his car stalled. That is way out there, and then to go after the tow company because he was out there for 15 minutes? Guess they never had to get service at the side of the road.

 

I feel sorry for the lost of Josh, but this guy is way out of line. His son made his choices and no one else should be paying his family for his mistake.

 

Wonder if some how had a conversation with Ben Hendrickson's dad about what to do?

[JoeHova]

This is really messed up. Luckily, it will likely get quickly thrown out unless the tow truck driver was somehow breaking some law. The father is probably just trying to get an insurance settlement from the insurers of all 3 parties. Classless, imo, to try to make money off of your own son's tragically stupid death.

 

 

I would obviously feel different if Hancock died through no (or little) fault of his own but he was obviously mainly responsible for his own death, so it just seems bad to try to get people who really had only a tangential connection to his death to take responsibility for it.

[Fatter than Joey]

Classless, imo, to try to make money off of your own son's tragically stupid death.

 

I don't agree with this sentiment -- The man lost his son, and that sort of grief tends to skew a person's perspective. I doubt he sees this as a "get rich" opportunity -- rather it is some way of taking care of his son.

[JoeHova]

Quote:

---

I don't agree with this sentiment -- The man lost his son, and that sort of grief tends to skew a person's perspective. I doubt he sees this as a "get rich" opportunity -- rather it is some way of taking care of his son.

---

 

 

Well, if he wants to "take care" of his son, he could maybe get involved with an anti-drunk driving or drug use campaign, rather than try to screw people who were just going about their business.

 

 

edit: I should say that I could possibly see suing the restaurant as I do think that some states have laws where the servers can be held somewhat responsible for drunk driving, but suing the guy whose car broke down is what really turned me against Hancock pere.

[Team Canada]

I'm as disgusted as anybody else, my only thought is that I think in suits you generally name as many parties as possible and then let the judge throw out the spurious ones, so perhaps that's going here.

[hauser42]

I don't agree with this sentiment -- The man lost his son, and that sort of grief tends to skew a person's perspective. I doubt he sees this as a "get rich" opportunity -- rather it is some way of taking care of his son.

 

Joey not start a big deal or anything. But how is this taking care of his son. Is he thinking that this might clear his name of wrong doing or that it will pay for any bills he had out there?

I just dont see how this is taking care of his son.

 

 

Maybe this lawyer convinced him he has a case also.

[wisconsinfan47]

The case(s) should definitely be dismissed. It was Josh's fault, first and foremost.

 

However, I can't comprehend what the grieving process for something like this is like, and I'd imagine it often involves lashing out and trying to find someone or something else to blame. There's no way Mr. Hancock wins lawsuits like these, so I am not going to pass judgment on how he chooses to grieve.

[thevaccinator27]

This seems like the very definition of a non-meritorious complaint. If I were representing a defendant, I'd move for sanctions against the plaintiff's atty.

[hawing]

So...can one of the attorneys on this forum provide some insight (not legal advice, just an opinion) on what makes it valid to go after the tow truck customer? Is it more than the theory expressed above (sue everyone in sight and see what sticks)? And please forgive my legal ignorance in asking.

 

Speaking strictly as a lay person when it comes to the law and litigation, I can see more of a case for the other parties named in the lawsuit - mostly the restaurant, and to a lesser extent the tow truck company/operator.

[TheBwaz]

First off, I don't take these kind of cases.

 

Second, we don't know all the facts. We haven't seen the police reports, the interviews with bartenders, the truck driver, etc. So, lets hold off before condemning someone as the scum of the earth.

 

Most states do have what is called a dram shop law. Basically, a tavern owner cannot serve an intoxicated person. If they do, they are considered PARTIALLY negligent. Do you think a tavern owner is going to voluntarily admit that they overserved a guy? Nope, thus the lawsuit.

 

As for the other parties if there is no reason for them to be in the suit, they will be dismissed. If the lawyer who brought the case didn't have any reason to do so, he/she can be punished (yes it does happen cynics).

 

Do I like this suit? No. But if Dad has been asking questions and not getting any straight answers, it is within his right to bring suit.

 

If people always told the truth or always did what they contract to do, there would be no need for the legal system.

 

EDIT: Hawing, to respond to your question, some form of negligence on behalf of the stalled driver is possible. If that stretch of road lacks a left hand shoulder, and they had the opportunity to get over before stopping, they may have created a dangerous situation. No, they would not be 100% liable, but some percentage could be attributed to them

[berniebrewer4life]

I feel really bad for the guy who was getting his car towed. He has to pony up the cash to get a lawyer because of this. So dumb.

[jason21nl]

so the owner of the stalled car not only feels horrible about the situation, but now is being sued because of it..if the road didn't have a big enough shoulder then maybe the city should be sued for not making a big enough road..or sue the tow truck driver for doing his job..or sue the st louis cardinals for not providing cabs when players go out drinking..just sue everyone....the leagal system is so messed up...your kid drove drunk, and not just a little drunk if i remember right...he was offered a cab and refused it...It must be extremely difficult to go through something like this for a family, but I'm sorry sir, your son did this to himself.

[Bent Wookies]

Why stop at the guy in the Geo who stalled his car? The driver who cut off the guy in the stalled Geo should be sued as well. Not to mention the grandparents of the tow truck driver, anyone who's ever owned a bar and finally that butterfly in China who started all this.

[homer]

I wonder if Hancock's dad is just in denial that his son is at fault here. Sounds like he's just lashing out and everyone and anything in order to deflect blame from Josh.

[TheBwaz]

Palsgraf v. LIRR

 

Alrighty, tort class time. There is a proximate cause to everything and yes you do have to draw the line somewhere. The key word here is reasonably foreseeable consequences.

 

Is the case repugnant? Sure, when you are looking at it as a complete outsider with no knowledge of the facts. I'm sure this will be all over talk radio tomorrow and we can all get lathered up and outraged.

 

Buuuut, what about that Geo driver? Were they drunk and stopped by the side to take a whiz and broke down? Did they have a license? Were they driving without insurance? Did the tow truck driver follow proper procedure for that stretch of road?

 

I'm not saying any of these things happend. Most likely Hancock is almost solely to blame and his estate will get bubkis. But we KNOW nothing, just assume.

[RightFieldCoder]

He should sue the Cardinals for not demoting his son to AAA.

 

Sorry, but Mr. Hancock is a giant douche. And a turd sandwich.

[jason21nl]

just seems kinda ballsy for the dad to go..Yes my son was hammered but.......

[Fatter than Joey]

Joey not start a big deal or anything. But how is this taking care of his son. Is he thinking that this might clear his name of wrong doing or that it will pay for any bills he had out there?

 

I have been in a family situation very very similar to this one. Josh's father lost his son out of the blue. That sort of shock, unless you have dealt with it, is impossible to comprehend. It is pretty easy for any of us to throw rocks at Mr. Hancock and call him "classless", and that is the sentiment I have a problem with. I find it very shallow to assume that this man is primarily striking at the opportunity to make money off of his son's death, without ever meeting this man, or being privy to the facts of the case.

 

Do his lawsuits have merit? -- That is impossible to say at this point. He has every right to investigate his son's death, and make sure that IF someone was in fact accountable, they are made responsible. As much negative press as Josh is going to get these last few weeks, I suspect his father feels the need to be Josh's advocate.

 

As I stated in my original post, Mr. Hancock's perspective may be skewed, -- and perhaps in a few weeks/months after all the evidence comes to light, he may change his mind, and his course of action.

 

If it helps him get through this time in his life, I think it is what he needs to do.

[danzig6767]

I always wonder when people sue over the death of a loved one and win money,do they spend it on themselves?

 

I have a daughter and even if she was wrongfully killed and a lawsuit was justified,i couldn't imagine doing anything with the won money except giving it to charity.The thought of living in a new home,driving a new car,or traveling on a vacation with money from my kids death kinda turns my stomach.Just couldn't see myself doing it.

[Fatter than Joey]

Sorry, but Mr. Hancock is a giant douche. And a turd sandwich.

 

C'mon. This is just unnecessary. I am pretty sure a person that would call a father who lost his son a turd, has any business expressing his/her opinion as it is probably nothing more than the braying of a jackass.