Another BS lawsuit

[RR_Security]

"Father sues restaurant over Cardinals pitcher's death."
Hancock's father sues over pitcher's death
By JIM SALTER, Associated Press Writer
May 24, 2007

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.

No word yet on whether any witnesses might have seen restaurant employees sitting on the deceased, pouring booze into him with a funnel.

[In addition to Mike Shannon's Restaurant and its manager, the owner's daughter, o]ther 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.

Dang, they forgot the manufacturers of all the vehicles, the people who designed and built the road, the taxpayers who fund the road . . .

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.

'Magine that.

[Shyster] Kantack said others could be added later as defendants in the suit. He declined to speculate on whether the Cardinals or Major League Baseball could be added to the suit,

For what? Paying him too much money, or not chaperoning him properly, or . . . ?

I'd really like to see all the defendants prevail, and then at least one of them countersue for malicious prosecution. Not necessarily the decedent's family, just the cheeseball barracuda who dreamed this up:

The lawsuit claimed Tolar was negligent in allowing his vehicle to reach the point where it stalled on the highway,

I better move on before I blurt out that I hate lawyers. Oops, too late.

[LeanG]

This needs to be on Court TV. I would Tivo this and keep it forever. Instant classic. I can tell my kids where I was when this case went to trial.

[(S)Sgt Elmer]

All he's done is show that he has no concept of personal responsibility.

And he won't get a dime.

[BaseballBabe]

Not all attorneys are bad.

[RR_Security]

Not all attorneys are bad.

Yeah, back on the 20th, Sgt. Geezer posted a story about a kind lawyer.

Well, okay, you're right. (Thinking about another thread asking why cops dislike the media so much. Not all reporters are candidates to be in a video for Don Henley's song "Dirty Laundry," but there are still too many who fit the profile.)

There's that certain percentage of lawyers who are "ambulance chasers," and they're disgusting. Then there's another group of them (quite possibly some of the same people) who don't know the difference between "zealous representation" and burning a big pile of horse manure to create enough of a smoke screen to confuse a jury into acquitting their client. (See "Chewbacca defense.")
Earlier this year, I was an interested observer of a criminal case that I believe had the wrong finding. (Sorry I can't give much more details about it here.) Before it was over, there was a mention in the papers of a civil suit. The circumstances of all that are, in a word, crap.

Yes, someone who owns/maintains an "attractive nuisance" should make it inaccessible to children. But adults who do anything that they know (or should know) will put them in harm's way are on their own. At least that's what I think common sense would say, but today that's the least "common" of the senses. Some people seem to have a really skewed idea of what someone "should know" might be dangerous to others, and their idea seems to be driven by the sound of cash registers. Most of those people also seem to have an office at some firm like Dewey Screwem and Howe.

The fear of lawsuits is turning us into a culture where personal responsibility isn't needed, because everything that someone might bump into must be swathed in bubblewrap. And that bubblewrap better be properly secured, so it can't do any harm, including making somebody worry that "something might happen."

{/rant}

[texaschickeee]

Quote:
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.

No word yet on whether any witnesses might have seen restaurant employees sitting on the deceased, pouring booze into him with a funnel.

**
Thanks to MADD this is becomeing more and more the staple of practice. Its not about the PERSONS responsabilty but also for the bartender or homeowner that CONTNUES to serve the person knowing he is drunk. Thats where the responsabity comes into play, period. if they are drunk and show it, dont give them more drinks. however, profit comes into play also.

[RR_Security]

Thats where the responsabity comes into play, period. if they are drunk and show it, dont give them more drinks. however, profit comes into play also.

Yeah, an argument can certainly be made that a drunk doesn't know they're impaired because of said impairment, so somebody else should "shut them off." But I think when it gets to the point of trying to sue someone because their car was disabled on the roadway (and that was apparently due to yet another driver's bad operation), then that's a stretch.
"Where there's blame, there's a claim." Ad absurdum, ad nauseam, yada yada.

[texaschickeee]

Yeah, an argument can certainly be made that a drunk doesn't know they're impaired because of said impairment, so somebody else should "shut them off." But I think when it gets to the point of trying to sue someone because their car was disabled on the roadway (and that was apparently due to yet another driver's bad operation), then that's a stretch.
"Where there's blame, there's a claim." Ad absurdum, ad nauseam, yada yada.

That is true. my quote was the direct first block and his responed. I totally agree that it is a strech to sue over the broken down car as the next blocks goes on to say. thats one reason they are going after the towing people too.

I personally was in a MVA in dec. the guy was TWICE the legal limit, and had his jeep parked on the freeway. I was the first of 6 cars to be in the wreck, and no it was not a pile up. I hit him from behind, going at least 50, went through a lane of traffic and ended up on the shoulder. (right where another freeway joins this freeway) others where swerving to miss when I finally got out of my totaled car. He was running back and forth in traffic, and finally got hit by a city bus. I could sue the crap out of him, but have chosen not to. what am I really going to get? he had 6 cars plus his jeep - three totaled.
sadly this doesnt go down as as drunk driver accident, becasue he wasnt driving.

[John_bell]

Its not about the PERSONS responsabilty but also for the bartender or homeowner that CONTNUES to serve the person knowing he is drunk. Thats where the responsabity comes into play, period. if they are drunk and show it, dont give them more drinks. however, profit comes into play also.

Missouri law says that he'll have to prove that the restaurant forced him to drink the alcohol.

[BaseballBabe]

Yeah, back on the 20th, Sgt. Geezer posted a story about a kind lawyer.

Well, okay, you're right. (Thinking about another thread asking why cops dislike the media so much. Not all reporters are candidates to be in a video for Don Henley's song "Dirty Laundry," but there are still too many who fit the profile.)

There's that certain percentage of lawyers who are "ambulance chasers," and they're disgusting. Then there's another group of them (quite possibly some of the same people) who don't know the difference between "zealous representation" and burning a big pile of horse manure to create enough of a smoke screen to confuse a jury into acquitting their client. (See "Chewbacca defense.")
Earlier this year, I was an interested observer of a criminal case that I believe had the wrong finding. (Sorry I can't give much more details about it here.) Before it was over, there was a mention in the papers of a civil suit. The circumstances of all that are, in a word, crap.

Yes, someone who owns/maintains an "attractive nuisance" should make it inaccessible to children. But adults who do anything that they know (or should know) will put them in harm's way are on their own. At least that's what I think common sense would say, but today that's the least "common" of the senses. Some people seem to have a really skewed idea of what someone "should know" might be dangerous to others, and their idea seems to be driven by the sound of cash registers. Most of those people also seem to have an office at some firm like Dewey Screwem and Howe.

The fear of lawsuits is turning us into a culture where personal responsibility isn't needed, because everything that someone might bump into must be swathed in bubblewrap. And that bubblewrap better be properly secured, so it can't do any harm, including making somebody worry that "something might happen."

{/rant}

The lawyer I am talking about is not a criminal lawyer.

[RR_Security]

The lawyer I am talking about is not a criminal lawyer.

"Got any criminal lawyers working around here?"
"Well, there are a few we suspect, but no arrests have been made yet."

Leave that door open, and watch me stroll right through it.

[Bearcat357]

Chewbacca defense

Hey now....I was going to use that defense when I finally snap and take someone out.....

[ratpatrol]

I guess I better go and build a fence around my attractive nusience in the back yard... I 'll use barb wire and electric fence, put up little warning signs..ie post signs, but then the kids will steal the signs and then Ill be in deep manure... (hint it's not a pool)..
MIckey

[Ex Army MP]

This seems hard to explain to people who aren't lawyers so I'll do the best that I can.

I seems that there are two things people here object to. One is the fact that you can blame others and the other is that Hancock's estate can profit from his idiocy.

First, as is usually the case in negligence suits, there are usually several tortfeasors that are liable. So let's pretend for a moment that there was an innocent victim besides Hancock and, God forbid, it was one of our relatives. Not only would we be going after Hancock's estate but we'd be going after anyone and everyone that's liable. Depending on MO law, which I am not familiar with, the bar may be liable if they served Hancock knowing he was intoxicated.

As for the tow truck driver and the motorist, they are a different story. They have to show that they were negligent. It seems as though the only way they'd have a case against the tow truck driver is if he was somehow parked negligently. I really don't understand how they could possibly have a case against the motorist. For what? It seems as though everything that flowed as a result of his breaking down could not have possible been reasonably foreseeable.

As for Hancock being able to profit when he himself was negligent, this depends on the state and it seems here that MO is a comparative negligence state. Years ago one could not recover if he was also negligent. Most states have abolished this. The theory is that you'd be letting a negligent party off the hook simply because the victim was the main offender. For example, suppose you are driving around like and idiot and crash into a tree. Then let's also suppose that your airbag doesn't deploy and you suffer serious injuries that you would not have suffered had the airbag deployed. Should the manufacturer be let off the hook for putting a faulty product into the stream of commerce?

I know it's not apparent to those outside the legal profession but there usually is logic to the law. But of course you do have lawyers that bring frivolous suits also.