In a story just released, Josh Hancock's father is suing just about anyone he can because his son died while driving under the influence. His lawsuit includes the bar, the tow truck company, and the owners of the bar. While it is his right to sue, if I were a judge I would throw this case out faster than you can spell DUI. This type of frivilous lawsuit completely ignores the one person who is most responsible for this accident and tragic death. The one person responsible is Josh Hancock.
Hancock was on a cell phone while driving late at night. His blood alcohol was nearly twice the legal limit, and they found marijuana in the car as well. Who knows if maybe he was under the influence of more than the alcohol, but either way both would reduce his reflexes considerably. Any sane jury should rule in favor of the defendents in this case. While I do think stadiums and clubs should not serve alcohol after the game, we in this country are suffering from a very sad disease. It is the disease which blames others for our own problems. Whether it is the recipient of welfare who refuses to go out and find work or it is the alcoholic who blames everyone else for his drinking, this is a serious problem that needs to be confronted. Our legal system has got to stop taking these bogus cases and when they are brought to the courts, judges need to dismiss them immediately. As long as our legal system allows these cases to go forward, people will find ways to sue each other.
While I feel extremely sorry to Mr. Hancock for the loss of his son, his grief will not go away no matter how large the award. Rather than blame others, why not use this tragedy to teach other young men and women about the dangers of drinking and driving.
Dean Hancock , Josh's father , is the one that should be sued here along with his attorney. Josh was a big boy , making millions and should have been old enough to care for himself. If daddy was so worried about his boy why wasnt he there to babysit him while he was drinking and rolling one. Lawsuit loving lowlifes are costing society a lot of cash and must be stopped. Mr Hancock , sorry you lost your son but blame his poor decisions - NOT the bar.
Scott Mlsna , Cashton Wis.
The reason this dolt is suing is because his meal ticket is gone. That's the only reason anyone would attempt to sue the owner of the car that was stuck on the side of the road. His kid was most likely sharing a big piece of the contract.
Baf, the practice of suing everyone and anyone is a typical ploy of attorneys so that they can collect from someone willing to settle. In this manner they have 5-6 potential meal tickets. The problem is that a judge should just dismiss this case. The cause for the accident was Josh, not the tow truck or a person who stalls on the highway. Otherwise anyone who stalls is liable.
What a sad commentary this is on the attitudes of many of my fellow Americans these days. Accountability is all but gone from the world. Instead of accepting blame for your own actions, the preferred course of action these days is to figure out which innocent people you can sue. It's terrible that putting together a lawsuit has become a normal step in the grieving process after a tragic accident.
Josh Hancock made a terrible decision, and he paid the ultimate price. It was Hancock's decision that killed him, not the bar owner, tow truck driver or owner of the disabled vehicle. While all three of those parties contributed to the accident, they are in no way responsible for the fact that Hancock chose to operate a vehicle while intoxicated.
I hope Hancock's father is hit with some common sense and drops the lawsuit, but I doubt it. "Who can I sue" has become the number one question asked when any accident occurs, and it makes me sick.
bafongu...i'm quite certain that Hancock had a substancial life insurance policy that probably paid a million plus to his parents. He was single...so he no one else to use as beneficiaries. I tend to think this is just grief and anger...being taken out on anyone within spitting distance.
You said it all Socal. All I can say is I agree. In turn, make the father pay for any court costs ensued for his desire to cash in on his son's death. Now it's a double tragedy.
socal - we haven't seen eye to eye on a lot of recent issues, but I think you're right on in this case.
Should he also find the guy who sold Josh the weed and sue him? How about whoever he was talking to on the phone? The maker of the car, for building a machine that can reach speeds above the legal limit? Where exactly does this end?
Unfortunanty, its an opertunity. The parents are looking for some one to blame. That poor bartender(who is probably making min. wage + tips) was star struck and would have served him until he passed out. If the parents do get anything out of this they should give it to someone or some organization that it would benifit. Or look in the mirror and drop the whole damn thing.
If I got into a car accident where I tried to make a late left turn and got smashed, I should sue the car companies for having too many cars on the road.
Josh Hancock's father is looking everywhere for someone to take responsibility for his son's drinking and ultimate death. Maybe if he had taught his son to not drink and drive he wouldn't have to try to cop big money from folks doing their jobs. No one else bent Josh's elbow so that he could get smashed. Instead of looking for someone else to blame Dean Hancock could use his son's death as a tool to help others.
Totally agree with you SoCal...
While it is an extremely sad story for Josh's family, and the Cardinals family who has been through too many tragedies... from what it sounded like, Josh had a problem. He had a problem with drinking, as well as other things, and this was not his only offense, but unfortunately, it was his last. As you said, the Dad is lashing out. It is a shame it had to end up like this. Fortunately, Josh didn't end up taking any other lives being this careless, and it is a shame that no one could recognize he had a problem any sooner. Nice post. KP
When I bartended back in the day, we were always cautious, particularly at closing time, about how much we served a person who would make repetitive trips to the bar, fearing that we could be held liable if anything were to happen on the way home.
Unfortunately, this Hancock story is getting really ugly.
Okay, I agree that Hancock was responsible for himself however, I work in an establishment (bowling alley) in which we are responsible for who we serve to. I do not agree with including the tow truck company, I do understand how a bar, bowling alley or restaurant can be held responsible. Every few years we have to be certified in TIPS training in order to serve alcohol. Although, we do not sell liquor we do sell beer and there are many times that I have to cut a patron off from alcohol. If any signs of intoxication are apparent, the establishment is suppose to cease sales to the individual.
Although the circumstances are different, the responsibility is the same. There was a situation a few years back in which a college group of guys were in a bowling center (not the one I work at - Thanks God) and had too much to drink. On their way back to campus, the driver, who was nearly twice the limit, ran a red light and hit a passing car. The driver and both passengers in the other car were killed by the incident. The parents of the kids that were killed, all sued the bowling center that served them and won the lawsuit. I know it is not the exact same as the Hancock situation but the responsibility is.
Oh, failed to mention, the parents of the driver also sued and won as well. The ruling was that the establishment was negligent in serving alcohol to impaired patrons.
One more thing Socal and I will quit burning up your comments page. I don't agree with the lawsuit either but law enforcement also has something to do with the determination of the outcome. Low enforcement in the case I stated early determined that the driver had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and in how much timeframe which allowed the responsibility to fall on the bowling center.
Another waste of taxpayer dollars. Everyone else should sue him for wasting their time and money. (wait that won't help)
His son clearly was at fault, I agree with Baf on this.
It's a tough case to make. Under dram shop laws the key is whether the bar knew the customer was intoxicated and kept serving him. The press accounts describe a crowded, noisy bar area. Did Shannon's know Hancock was drunk and keep serving him? Very tough to prove.
Dudski - Not as tough to prove when there was a Sportswriter (someone help me here because I can't remember the name) was at the same bar and described Hancock as being heavily intoxicated.
I heard a report on local radio that he had a couple of beers in the clubhouse after the game. All hearsay, but the reporter said that this was common practice. Players would hang out in the clubhouse after a game, BS and drink a couple of beers.
Wow! Yes it is unfortunate for the loss and tradegy of Josh Hancock however his decision led to this. I agree w/ SoCal and Bmoy on this issue. It was Josh's responsibility, Not the tow-truck or the bar. Didn't he learn anything in school about drinking and driving?
I was in college about 5yrs ago. At a bar I met this guy through a mutual friend. We were having a great time throwing some drinks back. This guy, who we will call knuckle head, decides he is feeling frisky and decides to wrestle around with me. I guess this is what we men do? It was completely playful and it didn't bother me. We were simply goofing off. It was really light ruff-housing if you will and completely initiated by him. Long story short, his shoulder got dislocated. I still don't know how exactly his shoulder dislocated since we were being pretty darn gentle, but it did.
The next day, I get a call from his attorney and he is suing not only for hospital bills, but for the upcoming loss of wages.
Thank god the bar had a camera and showed that it was playful and initiated by him, but how can someone justify the effort to sue in these cases?
Socalsportsfan ......... One can understand the pain that Hancock's father must be going through. But this action won't bring his son back. And surely he must understand also were it not for his son's folly of drinking and driving none of this would've happened. But unfortunately with this country being so litigious and always looking for someone to blame when the real culprit in this mess is the person who has lost his life so needlessly.
There's a parasite of a personal injury lawyer thats' feasting off all of this and then some ! And unfortunately for Hancock's family they don't seem to care.
As they're merely looking for the respite that a punitive civil lawsuit will bring in terms of money and nothing else !
justanotherfan/tophatal ...........
Last edited by justanotherfan on May 25th at 1:11 PM.
I can't believe this story! What a load of ####! I worked as a bartender for three years and the amount of times I called a cab, took someone's keys, drove someone home....is too many to count. I don't think that this was anyones responsibility but his own. Also, as hard as you try, sometimes there is NO stopping someone from driving away. Either they absolutely will not give the keys, or I even watched a guy start to walk home and by the time I left work, (which was not even 2 hours later) his car was gone. Walked till I couldnt see him, then returned to his car. There is only so much you can do. I hope that the justice system proves fair, and this wacko dad gets nothing!
The blame should be on Josh. He made the decision. I feel so bad for his family for him making the decision to drink and drive. I hope his father can let this go.
Well in all actuality, by the letter of the law the two people or I should say, defendants, that are in fault here are the bartender, or whomever passed him alchohol and the restaurant.
While I totally dispise lawsuits like this because, as many have said, it takes accountability away from the real people who are at fault, it just doesn't matter. Like I said, it doesn't matter because by the letter of the law, the fault is laid out to those who gave out the alcohol and didn't stop when he was OBVIOUSLY intoxicated.
lisa4usc......... You'd better hope that this isn't settled in any form whatsoever be it in or out of court. If that happens then it'll set a really dangerous precedence with regard to jurisprudence. I for one can't believe that a judge would be willing to hear such a case. It's insane to think that a parent would think to do such a thing espescially when the victim in this case bore the whole responsibility for what happened. He should be questioning the judgement of his own son in this instance and not others. And the non-descript piece of #### lawyer that's reperesenting him should be dropped from the highest precipice right unto his fu*kin' head. That's just the way I feel abnout the matter !
Not nearly as ridiculous as the judge suing the dry-cleaning business for millions of dollars after they initially lost his pants, but then later found them and returned them.
A very sad story about Hancock, and unfortunately one that could have been prevented.
If a wreck followed by a tardy appearance to a game in which you are still too hung-over to play just days before his fatal crash doesn't send up a red flag, I don't know what will.
SoCal you are so right. Josh Hancock is responsible for his own death. Not the bar, not the owner, not the manager, not the tow truck and certainly not the driver of the SUV.
Every since time started, man has not wanted to take responsibility for their actions. Man would rather blame someone else for their actions. I call it the Garden of Eden Syndrome.
Perhaps, I can shed a little bit of light on the law in this area though...
Hancock's estate is suing in what is called a "dram-shop" case. In Massachusetts (where I practice law) to be successful in a dram shop case you must prove the following:(1) the operator of the motor vehicle was a patron/social guest on the premises; (2) he was served an intoxicating liquor; (3) defendant served the patron while the patron was visibly intoxicated; (4) defendant knew or should have known that the patron was intoxicated; (5) the patron operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated; (6) the operation of a vehicle was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant; (7) a person of ordinary prudence would not have served said patron; and (8) the imposition of liability was not broken by the driving of an automobile as an intervening, superseding event because it was within the scope of foreseeable risks.
Essentially, if the bar served alcohol to Hancock when they KNEW or REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that he was VISIBLY INTOXICATED they share in the responsibility for the accident and death.
This does not absolve Hancock, who should have known better, but the restaurant has a responsibility to society, just as Hancock does.
There is no chance that the judge will just dismiss this action, and from my preliminary view of the facts, the case has some merit. Hancock's estate and his family will most probably collect money from the lawsuit.
Because of the doctrines of comparative and contributory negligence, even if Hancock were somewhat at fault, his family could still collect money from the bar.
I will try to post in more detail on my own blog later today or tomorrow.
Nus, I don't doubt that they will collect some money, but my point is I do not believe they should. People go to bars to become intoxicated, that is why they should bring a designated driver or call a cab. Secondly, the defense here may be able to prove he was high on Marijuana in which case the alcohol may not have been all that impaired his judgment. On top of that he was driving while talking on his cell phone, also a contributing factor which is illegal in some states. All combined, a good defense attorney should be able to fend off this case in court. However, you and I know they may settle before it ever goes to court.
Lastly, what really gets my goat is not the bar being sued, but the driver of the stalled vehicle and the tow truck company. If Hancock should collect from the insurance company of the stalled vehicle, then everyone who drives will have higher insurance premiums as insurance companies will have to potentially pay out every time a car is stalled and is in an accident.
Socalsportsfan ........ I see that LeBron finally came to play ' ball' and did ! Now the Pistons have really got to play as a team. They looked out of their depth last night against a Cavaliers' team that was playing some inspired basketball. Mind you I've now got my doubts as to what Chris Webber is doin' on that team. He seems and played like a geriatric whose Depends diapers had suddenly sprang a leak. It were as if he couldn't move.
I've got a new post up on the UFC bout over the weekend between Chuck Liddell and Quinton Jackson. It was one helluva' fight even though it lasted less than two minutes. Jackson knocked Liddell's #### out. And Liddell was seen or thought of as the ' baddest man on the planet'. So much so , for that proclamation as he was exposed by his much fiery opponent. I've got a piece posted up on it titled Stay Down Or Get Mowed Down. It's written under this guise if you're interested in reading it ?
Chimin' out !
I was working on a piece like this until I saw them popping up allover and realized I didn't have much new to add. Hancock's dad is a total fool and I really hope for the betterment of this country that ALL cases are dismissed, including the one against the bar.
