http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/05/24/hancock.lawsuit.ap/index.html?cnn=yes While an argument could be made regarding the culpability of the restaurant, how about blaming the real person responsible, you know, Josh Hancock? Suing the f'ing stalled driver? C'mon. As an aside, I'm currently reading The Responsible Serving of Alcoholic Beverages http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0910627630/104-8717428-5498333 and haven't quite gotten to the legalities of such a situation. Something I'm increasingly more curious about...
The sad thing in my mind isn't the lawsuit, it's the lawyer that took this case, and the judge that hasn't thrown this right the hell out.
He was completely drunk, was smoking pot, and talking on a cell phone, he didn't wear his safety belt, and now his dad wants to claim his death is someone else's fault? Bullshit.
I would agree with you 100% (and I do when it comes to the tow truck company and the driver of the stalled car) except that I could see an argument for the culpability of the restaurant. Again, I don't know the legalities (I'm no lawyer), but if a guy was clearly way over the limit and still being served drinks, shouldn't the restaurant still have some responsibility? And if not in a legal sense, surely a moral one.
I've read that even if he had been, it wouldn't have mattered. Not terribly important I know, just saying.
It depends on the state law concerning alcohol. Most states have third party laws where the restaurant/bar/establishment are in fact responsible for serving alcohol to a patron and then the patron goes out and gets in an accident. California is definitely one as well as Nevada. In hospitality, we are trained to get the guy in a cab if he's too drunk. Solely because if he gets behind the wheel, we're liable.
So true, its sad that while obviously his family has every right to be pissed off, they want to blame someone else instead of accepting the responsibility for who's fault it is which was Josh Hancock's and no one elses. Sadly you hear about stupid lawsuits like this all the time.
The guy with the stalled car (being a Prism, I'm assuming it's trashed) oughta sue the estate of Josh Hancock for damages. Not really, since that kinda retaliation doesn't really fix anything. But the father's actions here are pretty detestable.
The stalled driver and the tow truck company are being sued because they were hit by a drunk driver??? That's fucked up that it would even be considered.
Doesn't matter. It still highlights his total disregard for his own safety (not to mention the safety of others). A drunk, stoned, and distracted driver, at that! I swear the government needs to pass a law that you can't sue someone else for harm resulting directly from the "victim's" illegal actions. Got hurt because you were driving drunk? No lawsuit for you or your family (but against would be fine...). Got hurt because you led police on a car chase? Got hurt or killed breaking into someone's home to rob them? Got manhandled by security for shoplifting? Got hurt trying to climb someone's razorwire or electric fence, or some other way because you were trespassing on private property? No right to sue.
This dildo is dead because he was fucking stupid. Frankly, the gene pool should be suing his parents for having such a stupid son.
Texas is the same way, if a bartender gets you too drunk and then allows you to leave on your own they can get arrested. This suit is F'ing stupid though. 15 minutes is an exorbitant amount of time for a tow truck to get a car out of the way? The driver of the Prism is negligent for allowing another car to cut him off and force him to spin out? I understand they family is hurt, both by the fact that he is dead and the embarrassing way that he died, but it's really nobody's fault but his own. They may be awarded something just because the restaraunt over-served him, but that law is a BS cop-out for personal responsibility anyway.
When the article mentions that the Cardinals and MLB aren't named in the suit, I get the feeling they're almost mocking the dad. Like they wouldn't have been suprised if he'd tossed them on their also, for giving his son money to buy booze, and making him move to St. Louis.
Yeah, I can definitely see the bar/restaurant being sued, Indiana has a similar law I believe. But the "sue shotgun" approach is craptacular, and the option of needs to be eliminated altogether.
