Hancock's Dad Sues Everyone

[Flying Dutchman]

First off let me say I am biased about this, since I spent last Thanksgiving sitting in a hospital room with my girlfriend after she got plowed into by someone who blew a .24. So I have zero sympathy for anyone who chooses to drive drunk. So this is where I have the biggest problem.

Quote:

---

"It's understood that for the entire 3½ 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."

---

Now there is a chance that the bar is at some fault depending on Missouri law. However, what ever happened to personal responsibility? I have personally turned down more than a few free drinks because I knew I was driving later that night and I have many friends who have done the same. Heck even when I am drunk I know when to cut myself off, lest I puke, even if the drinks are free. So unless they stuck a funnel down his throat, and forced him to drink, the responsibility falls to him.

 

Also about this quote:

Quote:

---

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

---

By doing a brief Google search I find this from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch :

Quote:

---

At 12:34 a.m., the tow truck operator parked behind the Prizm, put on the truck's yellow roof lights and flashing red lights and called police. Officers were on their way to the scene when Hancock slammed into the truck.

---

And this should be verifiable based on police reports (I am not saying it has been, but should be pretty easy to find out). Now as for exorbitant time, well if they called the police, maybe they were waiting for them to arrive before loading the car? I don't know, maybe (although with the statute posted I would be suprised) he has a case against the bar, but the tow truck, and owner of the car, that just seems like such a stretch it's sad.

[Fatter than Joey]

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

 

Perhaps he doesn't -- I suppose that the key will be to show that he was "visibly intoxicated". I assume that there will be a lot of witnesses that will be able to back up someone's side of the story. That's for the courts to decide. The bar did offer him a cab, which leads me to suspect he may have in fact been "visibly intoxicated".

 

Bah FTJ, you're trolling now.

 

Why? -- Because I don't agree with you? -- Whatever...

 

Plus, in defending his BAC the taverns would simply ask to prove he didn't drink anything between the tavern and his car.

 

The BAC won't be evidence, if I understand that MO law correctly. Certainly the bar will be able to defend themselves, and when all the facts are on the table, they may be untouchable. That will come out in court.

 

As for the tow truck, you might be right that what I said wouldn't be a valid defense.

 

I won't pretend to know whether it would be a valid defense or not. I just think that the father has a right to ask questions, and make sure that other parties were or were not partly responsible.

 

But they are only starting this to help them when they get their balls sued off in a few months.

 

Perhaps. I don't know their family -- but having been involved in a situation much like this I can tell you from my experience that there is probably a lot of emotion fueling what happens, and I would be skeptical that this lawsuit was a pre-emptive strike. My guess is that the father is sad/angry and wants some sort of justice for his son, and I find it natural for him to be prejudiced on his son's behalf.

 

How would the towing company be anymore responsible than Hancock?

 

Tow trucks have rules and regulations they have to follow to prevent accidents -- they have to get the vehicles off the road as quickly as possible, set up flares, etc... it could be possible that they are entirely responsible for this accident.

 

When was the last time a drunk driver killed someone and then sued the bar for serving him too much?

 

Bars are responsible. Would you think it is OK for a victim to sue a bar that served someone way too much alcohol? Each state has laws about this sort of thing.

 

Truthfully, he's lucky that he only killed himself, and his family should leave it at that.

 

I understand your sentiment - I don't think Josh was lucky by any stretch.

[Fatter than Joey]

Now there is a chance that the bar is at some fault depending on Missouri law. However, what ever happened to personal responsibility?

 

One last comment and then I am done here....

 

The bar has a personal responsibility as well. They are profiting from people buying beer and getting drunk. A bartender is not some sort of good samaritan. I am all for personal responsibility -- I just think both the server and the drinker need to exercise it.

[jason21nl]

FTJ I can see your points..but for the first time i just don't agree with you...its a sad day.

[Beast Light]

Fatter Than Joey,

 

Listening to your arguments makes me want to stay inside my house for the rest of my life. There is no telling what misfortunes I could contribute to while going about my daily business.

 

I supposed even while staying in my house, I could still get myself into trouble. I could buy autographed 8x10 photo of Prince Fielder on Ebay, the seller could turn around and spend the money on cocaine and then proceed to take a lethal overdose. I suppose I should have done a background check on the sellar to make sure he wouldn't use the funds to harm himself...

 

Face it, Hancock is responsible for what he did. What angers me the most is the fact that the establishment that served the drinks is being sued. Since they offered to set him up with a ride home, it seems to me as if they excercised more responsibility than the average establishment would. The bottom line is that a 29 year old man made some very poor choices that night.

 

Rejecting a ride home - Check

Driving drunk - Check

Failure to wear seatbelt - Check

Speeding - Check

Talking on cell phone - Check

Marijuana in the car - Check

 

Chances are, he had made these same choices many times before. This time, he decisions ended in tragedy. I think what happened was very unfortunate event. I feel a great amount of sympathy for Josh and his family. What his father is doing however is wrong. Not that Josh's father owes it to anybody to help inform people of the dangers of drunk driving, but he could be using this as a platform to do so. This story could be about the poor choices that Josh made and it could really drive home the fact that no one is invincible ..that it can happen to you. Instead, his father is basically saying Josh would have been fine driving drunk if all these other people didn't screw up.

[pitchleague]

wonder why I'm not named in the lawsuit? I mean, I sent the guy down to the minors in my PITCH League baseball league back in March and almost traded him in April. I must have been a cause of his son's drinking problem.

[strawbossisevil]

And what good is going to come out of these lawsuits.

 

Even if for some tiny technicality, either the bar, or the towtruck driver, or the stalled motorist is given some of the blame. It is not going to bring his son back. All the money in the world isn't going to change that. Its going to be put on a blue collar guy who unknowingly made the tiniest mistake which somehow contributed to the death of Hancock. I mean it sucks that someone died, it really does. But sometimes accidents happen despite everyone's best intentions, and it shouldn't mean that we need to go out and sue the pants off people. While we might have the right to do that, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Besides what good is going to come out of sticking it to the little guy.

 

I think I'm scared to go out of my house too. And because of this I'm going to end up as a coach potato and get congestive heart failure, which I can link back to Fatter Than Joey's messages on this site. FTJ, my lawyer will be calling in about 20 years. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[logan82]

After reading the Missouri law as posted here I see it this way. The law seems to say that even if the bartender did serve Hancock while he was visibly intoxicated, the family has no ability to bring a suit against the bartender or the bar as long as Hancock was not forced to get intoxicated. It looks like the bartender might get fined or procecuted by the state, but no lawsuit. This is the part I am refering to.

Quote:

---

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.

---

[JimH5]

Bartenders have a legal obligation to serve only those who the law says they may.

 

They can't serve minors. They can't serve people who are intoxicated or those who are likely to become intoxicated. That's the gist of dram shop laws.

 

The laws are to say that alcohol needs to be treated differently than nachos or jeans or wiper blades. You can't just give someone a drink because they want one, or because they wave money in your face. You have to use the judgment of a reasonable person.

 

Josh Hancock did a dasterdly thing, by getting liquored up and driving. But it seems that he's not the only one who acted irresponsibly.

[Flying Dutchman]

Quote:

---

The bar has a personal responsibility as well. They are profiting from people buying beer and getting drunk. A bartender is not some sort of good samaritan. I am all for personal responsibility -- I just think both the server and the drinker need to exercise it.

---

I respectfully disagree with this. The bar is a business that sells intoxicating beverages, they know it is dangerous to drink and drive, and offered Hancock a cab, he declined. At that moment it became entirely personal responsibility. He chose to drive, drunk, on the phone, while speeding, without a seatbelt on. All of these things are known. We also know that the tow truck, at the very least had it's flashing yellow lights on, as well as it's hazards. I just don't see this as anything other than a bad choice by someone who, unfortunately, paid for it with is life.

[Beast Light]

If someone feels that the bar was irresponsible in serving Hancock ..or for any bar serving any intoxicated person for that matter, they must also believe that all bars should have a two drink maximum. Afterall, that is all it really takes to go above the legal limit of intoxication. Or the bars could get around this by having bouncers not only check for ID's, but also check for designated drivers.

 

If 4 people go into a bar, the bouncer could make sure one has committed to being the designated driver, and they could all have wristbands with matching numbers. When they leave ..the bouncer could check the wristbands to make sure everything checks out. Sound familiar? It should because this would be very similar to the process that Chuck E Cheese's uses to ensure that children are going home with their parents ...Children.

 

Adults need to act like adults and govern how much alcohol they consume. Also, there have been many times that I have been over the legal limit and there would be no way for the bar to tell. How should that be handled?

 

What is next? Should McDonald's turn people away if they try to add a McChicken to their Big Mac value meal? That would obviously be way too many calories and could contribute to obesity and high cholesterol ..thus leading to death.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Tow trucks have rules and regulations they have to follow to prevent accidents -- they have to get the vehicles off the road as quickly as possible, set up flares, etc... it could be possible that they are entirely responsible for this accident.

 

 

Entirely the tow truck's fault? According to the report, his flashing lights were on. Given that this was after midnight, I'm guessing the visibility factor of flashing lights was pretty high. As a person who spends a lot of drive time on the road during dark hours, you have to be trying NOT to see something on the side of the road with flashing lights.

 

I'm not even going to say it couldn't partially be the tow truck's fault, but to say it could be ENTIRELY the fault of the tow truck when the guy that hit it was drunk, high, and on a cell phone is seriously, seriously stretching it.

 

 

EDIT: And for all that, it became Hancock's fault the very second he decided to get behind the wheel of a car while drunk.

[Sepolevne]

I saw the grainy security camera footage of the accident and you can't see much, but the tow truck's lights are very clearly on.

 

I feel the worst for the poor guy the tow truck driver was helping. There is no reason to drag him into it. I hope some lawyer represents him pro-bono.

[Diskono]

Quote:

---

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.

---

I think any time you crash into a parked truck on the side of the road with strobe lights flashing, you caused the accident.

[TooLiveBrew]

late to this party, but it seems rather clear-cut for me: The dad has solid legal grounds whereby to sue, but the bar manager saved himself some flak by offering to call a cab. Overserving is something for which the bar could be found guilty - I'd guess similar to (criminal) negligence? But the adult individual responsibility lies on Hancock.

 

He made these choices, so while the bar can be held responsible for over-serving, they made an effort to take care of Hancock, and he turned it down to drive drunk, smoke up, and talk on his cell (from what I've heard, not exactly to his wife). Can you imagine being on the other end of the conversation that night?

[Fatter than Joey]

FTJ, my lawyer will be calling in about 20 years.

 

Fair enough http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Fatter than Joey]

FTJ I can see your points..but for the first time i just don't agree with you...its a sad day.

 

Heh, A lamb strays from the flock http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif just don't let someone pull you over to the dark side, and have you start wanting to get Doug Davis back! -- I just my approval rating with you stays north of 90%

 

It's all good -- we discussed our differences in a civil manner. This is a good example of a topic that people are going to have sensitivities on-- based on their personal experiences. I know I have mine.

 

My only points are really...

 

1.) We shouldn't assume that Mr. Hancock is the scum of the earth w/o being privy to all the information, and perhaps we should be empathetic to a man who lost his son and perhaps the emotion that is fueling his actions is also skewing his perspective. Denial is one of the steps in the grieving process. Who knows what will happen in the next weeks and months, perhaps he will drop his suits, perhaps he will speak out on drunk driving. I just think it is way to early to judge him at this point.

 

2.) A lawsuit that stems from an accident where someone is killed is probably not frivolous. If a sober person would have driven into the back of that towtruck -- the towtruck company probably would have been sued as well. It is for the courts to decide if the towtruck driver was at fault. The Hancocks deserve their day in court. They may lose, and be countersued, but they deserve their shot.

 

Josh Hancock made a lot of incredibly bad decisions. I don't deny that at all. He was judged responsible by the highest court and paid for it with his life. It is sad, but he could have prevented it.

[backup catchers]

He made the decesion he was going to get drunkl get high and drive around

 

Not to nit oicj but he had dope in the car and I don't think they have determined he had actually smoked it that night so far.

 

The lawyer may have decided the bar knew he was too drunk to drive because they offered him the cab. If I'm a lawyer I certainly would use the offer as evidence they knew him to be too intoxicated to drive. Then agian if I'm the bar I'm going to say we offer that to anyone who had more than one drink of some such thing.

 

Ulitmately there are very few things that are 100% one person's fault. Usually it is a combination of little factors that, combined, make a deadly combination. I kind of think his dad knows his son screwed up but would like to know all the factors that caused his death. If indeed the tow truck driver did not follow the perscribed proceedures he could have been a contributing factor. I drive about 30,000 miles a year much of it at night. I know for a fact sometimes lights appear further away than they are. He may have seen those lights but thought they were further away or moving instead of stationary. As Bwaz said we don't know all the circumstances. If indeed the driver was not following legal proceedures he could have caused the death of someone who had nothing to drink and simply didn't interpret the opitcal illusion correctly.

[mothershipconnection]

I think it's really hard to prove with any certainty that the bar served someone who was clearly intoxicated. To be certain, you'd need to prove that the person didn't simply have a sober friend ordering drinks for him, or that he didn't have a mammoth tolerance that would create the illusion that he's sober. If you can act sober, and go from one bartender to another, none of them would know how many drinks you had. Also, what if you're still kinda sober but then order a pitcher for the table and drink it all yourself? What if you just had 2 shots in 5 minutes and they haven't kicked in?

 

It just seems so speculative and subjective to me. Since this was a restaurant bar, it's maybe a little more clear-cut, but it's still shaky. I don't know how you'd ever prove it if this were in a nightclub filled with 300 people.

[brewcrewreview]

Beast Light,

If you read earlier discussions on this site, you'll see that Fatter Than Joey is no proponent of personal responsibility. His opinions on this come as no surprise to me at all.

[mothershipconnection]

Beast Light,

If you read earlier discussions on this site, you'll see that Fatter Than Joey is no proponent of personal responsibility. His opinions on this come as no surprise to me at all.

 

And if one reads your posts, they'll see you're no proponent of the avoidance of taking every possible opportunity to rock the boat. I'm really unsure what you intended to add with that post, other than an attempt to create a big stink and eventually frame yourself as a martyr.

[TheBwaz]

I fail to see how sliming FTJ helps make your point, or any point for that matter. Its like trying to win an argument by shouting "You're an idiot!" at the top of you lungs.

 

After reviewing the MO statute (I am not licensed in that state) it appears that the suit gainst the bar owner will go nowhere. There may be some wiggle room to include a server in the suit, and I could make a long and boring argument that the statute contradicts itself but it probably wouldn't work in court. Strange that MO will let you get as drunk as you want and the bartender can help you to your car after serving you 20 shots of tequila and have no responsibility. Hancock is burdened by personal responsibility but the batender isn't?

 

As for the seeming shotgun approach by suing everyone here, well, you have to. The rules of Civil Procedure say that you need to join everybody onvovled in the same suit or forever lose a right of recovery against them. In other words, you can't try the bat, and then the Geo driver, and then the tow truck driver. You have to go after them all at once.

[jason21nl]

Beast Light,

If you read earlier discussions on this site, you'll see that Fatter Than Joey is no proponent of personal responsibility. His opinions on this come as no surprise to me at all.

 

its fine to disagree with someone, but your comments have nothing to add to this topic

[Loopee]

Just a few thoughts

 

The number of people involved in this lawsuit is probably related to the negligence system in Missouri, which is a pure comparative negligence state. This means, that an injured can recover for other's negligence even if the accident was mostly the injured's fault. For example, if the jury finds that Hancock was 90% responsible, and the truck driver was 10% liable, then a cause of action for 10% recovery would exist. I don't know the whole facts here, but it may be possible that someone did do something that contributed to this accident.

 

Naming everyone conceivably partially at fault is really what you're supposed to do when pleading. Additionally, you get some evidentiary bonuses under hearsay exemptions if someone is a party-opponent instead of just a 3rd party.

 

As far as forcing the towed driver to get a lawyer, almost every liability insurance policy will provide a defense for a lawsuit.

 

Missouri's tavern liability law seems to allow only injured 3rd parties to sue for damages. (The tow truck driver for example). My guess is that the taveern is included as a party because some of the people are likely going to sue them anyway--and Hancock's position is going to be that the tavern is responsible for some of the damage/injury.

 

One possibility here is that Hancock's attorney is trying to get a jump on defending the impending lawsuits by other people (tow truck driver, other car) by filing first. Just because a suit was filed doesn't necessarily mean that someone is looking for a payout. Hancock is very likely liable for some things here, this may be a pre-emptive defense move. Either that, or someone is not willingly telling what's happened and the suit is being used to get some answers.

[Fatter than Joey]

If you read earlier discussions on this site, you'll see that Fatter Than Joey is no proponent of personal responsibility.

 

This isn't at all true, at least how you intend -- If you actually read what I wrote, -- I believe that everybody has personal responsibility not just Josh Hancock, I believe Hancock has PR, the bartender, the tow-truck driver, etc.

 

Now, I am not a proponent of establishing a government based on the fallacy that everybody is responsible enough to govern themselves. -- If that is what you were driving at, then you were spot on -- however that is not relevant to the thread.

 

His opinions on this come as no surprise to me at all.

 

This shows you are retaining something which is good.

 

I fail to see how sliming FTJ helps make your point, or any point for that matter.

 

This is sage advice. However, what Bwaz fails to mention -- is that sliming on the FtotheTtotheJ isn't going to help you at all with the ladies, as I am their catnip.