Hancock's Dad Sues Everyone

[Fatter than Joey]

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.

 

He could very well be, or, he could be trying to get to the bottom of things, and making sure no one else was at fault when Josh was killed.

 

I certainly understand the negative sentiment towards Josh's drunk driving, but his dad is a guy who lost his son -- I don't understand why there is such a negative reaction to him.

[strawbossisevil]

Quote:

---

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

---

 

What, you mean make numerous other peoples lives miserable too? Yeah, good thinking.

 

We live in a lawsuit happy world. Here are the facts that we do know. The stalled car had its flashers on. Hancock was driving drunk after being offered a cab by the restaurant. Hancock in his own self made, self produced drunken stupor drove his own car into the stalled car. Notice where the blame should fall.

 

The problems here are not going to be made any better through a lawsuit. If anything, Hancock's dad will be rolling in millions earned off the backs of hard working blue collar people who had no idea that they would somehow be responsible for someone destroying himself by driving impaired.

 

People need to own up to their mistakes (or their children's mistakes) and need to stop always trying to pass the blame (or get rich quick, whatever the motive is).

[iluvlamp]

Quote:

---

Hancock in his own self made, self produced drunken stupor drove his own car into the stalled car.

---

 

Actually slammed into the back of the tow truck and not the stalled car. Good points nonetheless.

[jason21nl]

I don't understand why there is such a negative reaction to him

 

 

because the way it sounds like, he wants to blame everyone else but his son..

 

and no, I don't know police reports, or anything else..just saying how it sounds like.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

He made the decesion he was going to get drunkl get high and drive around (to another bar no less!). He made these choices sober.

 

This guy had a problem with alcohol and drugs and was even late to games because of it. This is the kind of thing all his teammates probably saw coming after the fact.

 

TheBawz: We don't need to know all the facts to judge this guy. We aren't a court of law. The bill of rights only says that a court of law has to do this. The court of public perception says this guys a loser who had it all and blew it. That this guy made the choice to do these things and paid the ultimate price for it. That his father wants to sue someone when its obvious his son is an idiot.

 

So you're right, the courts will view the evidence. But we know enough facts to form a valid opinion. He got drunk and high. He drove his car. He crashed into someone. And he endangered their lives....but now they're at fault?! Gimmie a break. I don't care why this guys car was on the highway stalled. It happens all the time. I'll let the courts figure it out.

 

But I hope Mr. Hancock knows it was his son that did this to himself and to stop the self pity. His son is a selfish jerk who endangered the lives of many that night. We should only be thankful he killed himself and not anyone else.

 

His father should be apologizing to the people he almost killed.

 

I'm going to guess this lawsuit is happening to counter the inevitable lawsuit that the tow truck and the stalled guy will bring against Hancock's estate. Hancock endangered their lives and probably created great trauma or some crap that will play in a court real nice.

 

This lawsuit only exists to help their defence when Josh gets sued post mortem.

[Fatter than Joey]

Notice where the blame should fall.

 

Where? -- In your 2 sentence recap? - C'mon -- let's not pretend we are privy to all of the information, or that these sorts of situations are black & white. --Just because Hancock was drunk, does not mean he casued the accident -- It would wrong to presume that.

 

The courts will decide who is to blame. If Hancock was alive he would have the right to defend himself.

[jason21nl]

If Hancock was alive he would have the right to defend himself

 

 

that would be one heck of a defense...how would that go? I was really drunk but I would have been ok if that car wouldn't have stalled? Not sure that would go over well in court or to police officers

[hawing]

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

 

Well, there's spending and then there's Spending. Going on a shopping spree, for lack of a better phrase, seems pretty cold. If I lost my S.O., got money from a related lawsuit, and used it to, say, pay down our mortgage so I could stay in our home...that doesn't seem quite so gratuitous. (And I hope it never becomes necessary.)

 

Bwaz, I appreciate the reminder that we don't know the whole story, and that there is room in the judicial system to weed out the (relatively) spurious litigation. It's hard for me to have patience with the deceased in the case, given his apparent impairment while he drove, and it pains me extra that this guy whose car stalled has to go through this crap, but I'll try to reserve judgement for now.

 

(Though my sympathy for the whole situation has pretty much plummeted.)

[BraunsBoyfriend]

Like I put in my edit, this is probably a preemptive lawsuit to soften the blow when the other people whose lives were put in danger sue the estate of Josh Hancock for endangering their lives, damaging their vehicles, etc.

 

I'd sue Josh Hancocks balls off if I was in their position.

[Fatter than Joey]

because the way it sounds like, he wants to blame everyone else but his son..

 

I have not read anything that would give me this impression -- I think that the dad feels the obligation to represent the family.

 

Again, just because someone is drunk does not mean that they necessarily caused or are responsible for the accident. It is possible that if that tow truck was in the wrong place for too long, a perfectly sober person could have slammed into it as well.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

hawing, if you got any kind of considerable money you'd be better off not paying off your mortgage with it. Your mortgages interest rate is probably less that what you could if you had a couple hundred thousand from a lawsuit.

 

Your best bet would be to find a reasonably high yield fund to put your money into and watch the magic of compound interest delight you.

 

Usually any time you get a decent chunk of money, paying things off is the last thing you should do. You're almost always better off investing it.

[Fatter than Joey]

Not sure that would go over well in court or to police officers

 

Maybe not -- the point is, he would get the opportunity to defend himself -- he would have the right to be represented in court.

[jason21nl]

come on FTJ you only quoted part of my sentence..i said because the way it sounds, he is blaming everyone but his son..not that he is blaming everyone but his son...either way,

I have a ton of friends that are cops, and my brother soon will be a cop. I have talked to them about this soft of thing, and the same response always comes back....if you drink and drive, and kill yourself, thats your own damn fault.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

I love this part:

 

"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."

 

Yeah, you have a real strong case there.

 

And then this part. Notice the slimy use of the word "handed":

 

""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.""

 

Handed drinks, huh? I guess they have to hand them to you after you order them. Also, what does it matter that he was never without a drink? You could have 1 drink HANDED to you and consume it for 3 hours. This fits the criteria for being handed a drink and never being without a drink.

 

And then this silly point:

 

""Were the police contacted?" Kantack asked. "Why weren't flares put out? Why was the tow truck there for an exorbitant amount of time?""

 

OK, if the tow truck wasn't there then Hancock would have slammed into the next thing: The guys stalled car. A mechanical failure likely happened with this guy as a police report says he was cut off and spun out. So, does it even matter if a tow truck was there? Hancock would have crashed into a car then, that would probably have a person in it and maybe killed him. And since he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was drunk and speeding, I don't see how he would have avoided this and not a tow truck. Thank God that Tow truck was there to protect the guy whose car broke down.

 

But we get this gem at the end

 

"Dean Hancock said in a statement that the "facts and circumstances" of Josh's death "have caused great pain to all of Josh's family." As administrator of his son's estate, Dean Hancock said he has an obligation to represent the family on all issues, "including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death.""

 

This almost verifies my earlier suspicions that this guy is doing what's "best" for his kids estate. That is, to take legal action before they can take action on you. This is an old trick.

 

They don't intend to win anything. What they are trying to do is limit Josh's liability in this case. If they somehow get a favorable decision it can be used when they inevitably get sued by these people they are suing. It gives them, in effect, 2 trials to defend Josh. With this one they get to play from the position of power by being a plaintiff and make these people defend themselves from whatever evidence they might bring up. This can then be used later when they get sued.

 

This might protect some of Josh Hancock's estate.

[Fatter than Joey]

come on FTJ you only quoted part of my sentence..

 

Fixed that.

 

I have a ton of friends that are cops, and my brother soon will be a cop. I have talked to them about this sort of thing, and the same response always comes back....if you drink and drive, and kill yourself, thats your own damn fault.

 

I have a lot of family in law enforcement, they are entitled to their opinions, but they are not legal experts.

 

You see this sort of line of reason when gals get drunk and then raped. Certainly getting drunk and unable to control your actions is not very responsible, and ultimately, Josh paid the highest price.

 

Here is the thing though. Josh Hancock was drunk, but that does not make him automatically exclusively or entirely at fault for an accident. Without seeing the facts, it is impossible for us to conclude that Hancock's inebriation was entirely responsible for the accident. -- Certainly it may be the most likely conclusion -- but if a tow-truck is improperly situated -- sober people can hit it just as easily as drunk people.

[TheCrew07]

I can understand grieving, but where do you draw the line?

 

Say it makes him feel good to kill someone, extreme example to be sure, but where do you draw the line? The truth is that there is no line anymore, anything and everything is fair game. This is just another example frivolous litigation that in the end does nothing but hurt the consumer, because regardless of the outcome, insurance premiums rise, and the cost gets passed along to the consumer.

 

It's one thing to grieve, it's another to place blame where it doesn't belong. Sure you can legally assign blame to someone for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but why it is morally acceptable to do so?

[Fatter than Joey]

This fits the criteria for being handed a drink and never being without a drink.

 

He had 2x the BAC. I think it is obvious that the bar served him long after he was intoxicated. Bars have a responsibility in this sort of thing.

 

OK, if the tow truck wasn't there then Hancock would have slammed into the next thing:

 

Of course you do not know this at all.

 

So, does it even matter if a tow truck was there?

 

Of course, that is what he hit -- If the tow truck wasn't there, he could have gotten to his destination safely -- you cannot presume there would have been an accident.

 

If they somehow get a favorable decision it can be used when they inevitably get sued by these people they are suing.

 

Like perhaps the towing company and/or the bar are also responsible?

[jason21nl]

its not like he was just a little drunk either. almost twice the legal limit..like its been said, we don't know all the details but it just seems like the dad is reaching..

 

this is a question because I have no clue....if you're a bar owner, how are you supposed to know if someone is drunk or not? your bartenders are there to serve drinks and as long as someone isn't falling over themselves everything is fine..and once you offer a cab doesn't that wash your hands clean of the situation..if the guy denys it, then its all on him now?

[jason21nl]

If the tow truck wasn't there, he could have gotten to his destination safely -- you cannot presume there would have been an accident.

 

 

or he could have continued and slammed into a family of 4 and killed everyone...so it could go either way there.

[Fatter than Joey]

I can understand grieving, but where do you draw the line?

 

At the point you get your questions answered sufficiently I suppose.

 

I don't see Mr. Hancock questioning the bar or the towing company's responsibility in this accident as frivolous. The tow truck could have been illegally situated, the bar probably broke the law in serving Josh beyond intoxication.

 

Mr. Hancock, is not going to be able to look at this event with the perspective that others may be able to. He has a right to pursue this, and I think he probably is pretty convicted at this point that there are other parties that are partially responsible -- and that will be up to a judge/jury to decide.

[berniebrewer4life]

Quote:

---

Josh Hancock was drunk, but that does not make him automatically exclusively or entirely at fault for an accident. Without seeing the facts, it is impossible for us to conclude that Hancock's inebriation was entirely responsible for the accident. --

---

 

From the information given, i put the blame on the combination of Drinking and talking on a cell phone(which is the equivelant to driving drunk, iirc), and possibly being high. I reserve the right to change my opinion if new info comes out tho.

 

Quote:

---

I have a lot of family in law enforcement, they are entitled to their opinions, but they are not legal experts.

---

 

I think they were just stating thier opinions as just that, and not as fact. Atleast that's how i read it.

[JoeHova]

Here is the relevant Missouri Statute:

 

Quote:

---

537.053.

 

2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

 

3. For purposes of this section, a person is "visibly intoxicated" when inebriated to such an extent that the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction. A person's blood alcohol content does not constitute prima facie evidence to establish that a person is visibly intoxicated within the meaning of this section, but may be admissible as relevant evidence of the person's intoxication.

4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to provide a right of recovery to a person who suffers injury or death proximately caused by the person's voluntary intoxication unless the person is under the age of twenty-one years. No person over the age of twenty-one years or their dependents, personal representative, and heirs may assert a claim for damages for personal injury or death against a seller of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises arising out of the person's voluntary intoxication.

---

 

 

I don't see how they even have a case against the bar.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

Bah FTJ, you're trolling now.

 

The tavern laws, nearly impossible to enforce BTW, are for people are that are so noticeably drunk that any reasonable person would say this person is seriously drunk. Bars can be busy and it's impossible for a bar tender to keep up. They will not be found guilty of anything. He wasn't sleeping and had control of himself. Plus, in defending his BAC the taverns would simply ask to prove he didn't drink anything between the tavern and his car.

 

As for the tow truck, you might be right that what I said wouldn't be a valid defense. The courts don't care if he would have hit someone else necessarily. But that he hit you. But, it would be easy to assume he would have hit and maybe killed the guy in the stalled car.

 

Devils advocate is fun, so I can't blame you. But they are only starting this to help them when they get their balls sued off in a few months.

[Fatter than Joey]

or he could have continued and slammed into a family of 4 and killed everyone...so it could go either way there.

 

sure -- however that is not what happened -- Josh paid a price for driving drunk, I am sure if he would have survived, he'd be in a lot of hot water, and deservedly so -- but just because you are drunk does not make you automatically liable for everything.

 

but it just seems like the dad is reaching..

 

He could very well be doing so -- I suspect that there is a lot of emotion behind what he is doing -- but I have a hard time hand-waving that away.

 

if you're a bar owner, how are you supposed to know if someone is drunk or not?

 

Well you can use those formulas, and keep track of what you serve a person -- that is how we did it when I was serving drinks. Josh certainly has a personal responsibility -- but so do bartenders. I am sure the laws are different from state to state -- but that is why states require liquor licences, and bartenders to get training, for this exact sort of situation.

[TheCrew07]

How would the towing company be anymore responsible than Hancock? He was drunk driving and in a very real way endangering the life of every motorist he encountered, including himself. Not only was he drunk, but he was distracted by a cell phone conversation, no case can even be made that he was totally focused on the road. What if he had hit a parked car and killed a family? Would his dad be sue the estate of the family? Truthfully, he's lucky that he only killed himself, and his family should leave it at that.

 

When was the last time a drunk driver killed someone and then sued the bar for serving him too much? I've seen people say some pretty horrible things to bartenders who refused to serve them, this goes both ways. If you have a problem with alcohol, and you frequent the same bar, should they not serve you? How do they know when you're positively past the legal limit? The bar offered to get him a cab and he refused, how many people do that every single day. Also, it's not like he was going home, he was heading to another bar most likely to pick up some chicks.

 

I wish I was more articulate and could adequately put down on paper how much this disgusts me.