wiegie Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Hancock's father files suitRestaurant, towing company, stalled car driver sued Posted: Thursday May 24, 2007 3:24PM; Updated: Thursday May 24, 2007 3:54PM 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. The suit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court by Dean Hancock of Tupelo, Miss., does not specify damages. Mike Shannon's Restaurant, owned by the longtime Cardinals broadcaster who starred on three World Series teams in the 1960s, is a defendant in the case along with Shannon's daughter, Patricia Shannon Van Matre, the restaurant manager. Other 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. The Cardinals and Major League Baseball were not listed as defendants. 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. Josh Gordon also was found in the SUV. Mokwa said Hancock went to Shannon's not long after the Cardinals played a day game against the Chicago Cubs on April 28. The lawsuit claimed that Hancock was a regular at the restaurant bar and was there for more than 31/2 hours. "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." A person answering phones at the restaurant declined comment. A message left with Van Matre was not returned. The lawsuit claimed Tolar was negligent in allowing his Geo Prism to reach the point where it stalled on the highway, and for failing to move it out of the way of oncoming traffic. A police report said the Prism became stalled when it spun out after being cut off by another vehicle. Police said Hargrove noticed the stalled vehicle and stopped to help. The report said he told officers he was there five to seven minutes before his truck was hit by Hancock's SUV. But Kantack said the tow truck may have been there up to 15 minutes, yet failed to get the stalled vehicle out of the way. "Were the police contacted?" Kantack asked. "Why weren't flares put out? Why was the tow truck there for an exorbitant amount of time?" Tolar did not have a listed telephone number. Calls to the towing company were met with a busy signal. 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, but said the Hancock family has been "overwhelmed by the support and respect the Cardinals have shown since Josh's passing." 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 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." Is it too late for Dean to sue his son...I mean, so long as he is going after those who contributed to his death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 (edited) It's always somebdoy else's fault, not the wasted guy driving and talking on his cell without a seatbelt on. edit: oh, and speeding. Edited May 24, 2007 by chester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 If the guy was clearly intoxicated -- and apparently he was -- then I can see the bar/restaurant having some legal liability for continuing to serve him. In some states at least, the establishment has a responsibility to cut off anyone who is obviously intoxicated. The rest would be hysterically funny if it weren't so damned pitiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 (edited) Is it too late for Dean to sue his son...I mean, so long as he is going after those who contributed to his death? well it used to be pretty much universally the case that when there was ANY contributory negligence by the injured, he was barred from recovering from anyone else who may also have been negligent. that started being replaced with schemes where, if an injured plaintiff's own negligence was more than 50% responsible for his injury, he could not recover. but now that idea is almost totally gone, replaced with the notion of "comparitive negligence", where even if hancock's negligence is 90% responsible for his own death, his family can conceivably recover 10% of the economic value placed on his life (including future earning potential) from the others. so yeah, a millionaire ball player driving drunk off his ass, high on Josh Gordon, yapping on his cell phone who plows into a tow truck and chops his own head off can conceivably recover damages based on his millionaire salary from the guy whose geo metro broke down on the same highway. me, i kinda wish the law would go back to the way it always was before. Edited May 24, 2007 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 so yeah, a millionaire ball player driving drunk off his ass, high on Josh Gordon, yapping on his cell phone who plows into a tow truck and chops his own head off can conceivably recover damages based on his millionaire salary from the guy whose geo metro broke down on the same highway. me, i kinda wish the law would go back to the way it always was before. I think the Geo driver should counter-sue for emotional distress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 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. Josh Gordon also was found in the SUV. Hancock's father should be sending apologies to everyone on the road that night whose lives were endangered by his son's recklessness disregard for human life. I can't imagine the pain of losing a child -- but c'mon ... His adult "child" was double the legal limit drunk, weeeed in the car, not wearing a seatbelt -- and he wants him to be the victim and get rich off it by punishing the folks who were minding their own business on the side of the road????????? The bar? Maybe -- but the money should go to MADD in a humble, embarassed apology for his son idiocy if they are found PARTLY liable for Hancock's actions. Personal responsibility. Is it completely dead in America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 a responsibility to cut off anyone who is obviously intoxicated. They should also put seatbelts on barstools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Devastated Father lashing out as a way to help deal with his grief? or Greedy opportunist looking to supplement the income lost from his Son's career? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Devastated Father lashing out as a way to help deal with his grief? or Greedy opportunist looking to supplement the income lost from his Son's career? Yep, on both accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 (edited) Devastated Father lashing out as a way to help deal with his grief? or Greedy opportunist looking to supplement the income lost from his Son's career? Well, now I can see where Hancock's sense of social responsibility came from. It's really sad what people will do for money these days. Edited May 24, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 This would be sad if it wasn't so risible. I hope the tow truck guy countersues for damage to his truck and the cost of cleaning the blood off it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 that started being replaced with schemes where, if an injured plaintiff's own negligence was more than 50% responsible for his injury, he could not recover. but now that idea is almost totally gone, replaced with the notion of "comparitive negligence", where even if hancock's negligence is 90% responsible for his own death, his family can conceivably recover 10% of the economic value placed on his life (including future earning potential) from the others. About 2/3 of states are 50/51% states. Only about 13 are pure comparative (no bar). Only about 5 are pure contributory (bar at 1% and higher). Missou is one of the 13 or so pure comparative states ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 This guy should be ashamed of himself. He suffered a great loss, but what he's doing is completely wrong. Josh could have killed both of the guys on the side of the road, and it was probably pure luck that he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I dont think much of his suit. Dram shop cases are good cases for an innocent non-drunkard, bad cases for a drunkard ... The side of the road case does not seem so good either. He may get a settlement but only because of who he is. If you take Joe the janitor and give him the same facts the case would be laughed out of the courtroom ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Well, the best part of the case from the plaintiff's perspective is the dram shop action against the restaurant. If there are witnesses that testify that Hancock was all liquored up and the restaurant employees knew it but continued to serve him, the restaurant may have some exposure (depending on state law). There are the mitigating factors: speeding, cell phone, no seat belt and, to a lesser extent, Josh Gordon. (Unless they find THC in his blood, a court will not likely admit that into evidence. It will have some effect on settlement discussions though.) But plaintiff will argue that the negligence of the resturant diminished his capacity. The case against the towing company seems much tougher. Maybe the guy didn't put out flares or act as a reasonably prudent tow truck driver, but the company will argue that the mitigating factors at least suggest that flares or triangles would not have made a difference. The company can also point the finger at the restaurant. The effect of this depends on state law. (In Michigan, a jury would apportion fault between tortfeasors, and, in this case, Hancock.) The driver of the stalled automobile faces the least exposure. Plaintiff sued him because it isn't going to cost plaintiff much of anything to do so (given that there are other defendants) and because he is hoping that the driver is insured and the insurance company will pay something) Again, one cannot really analyze the merits (or lack thereof) of the case without knowing state law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Well, the best part of the case from the plaintiff's perspective is the dram shop action against the restaurant. If there are witnesses that testify that Hancock was all liquored up and the restaurant employees knew it but continued to serve him, the restaurant may have some exposure (depending on state law). There are the mitigating factors: speeding, cell phone, no seat belt and, to a lesser extent, Josh Gordon. (Unless they find THC in his blood, a court will not likely admit that into evidence. It will have some effect on settlement discussions though.) But plaintiff will argue that the negligence of the resturant diminished his capacity. The case against the towing company seems much tougher. Maybe the guy didn't put out flares or act as a reasonably prudent tow truck driver, but the company will argue that the mitigating factors at least suggest that flares or triangles would not have made a difference. The company can also point the finger at the restaurant. The effect of this depends on state law. (In Michigan, a jury would apportion fault between tortfeasors, and, in this case, Hancock.) The driver of the stalled automobile faces the least exposure. Plaintiff sued him because it isn't going to cost plaintiff much of anything to do so (given that there are other defendants) and because he is hoping that the driver is insured and the insurance company will pay something) Again, one cannot really analyze the merits (or lack thereof) of the case without knowing state law. Can we at least say that it's in bad taste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 i find it funny that lawyers can never say that a lawsuit is bad or in poor taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Can we at least say that it's in bad taste? i find it funny that lawyers can never say that a lawsuit is bad or in poor taste. Without knowing the facts, I have a difficult time making such a judgment. The general media typically do not report lawsuits accurately, probably becuase they don't understand what is relevant to a lawsuit. Furthermore, such a judgment has little to do with the merits of the case. That being said: 1) If there is evidence that restaurant employees continued to serve Hancock when he was visibly intoxicated, depending on state law, there is likely a legitimate claim against the restaurant. 2) The claim against the towing company seems like a reach to me. 3) The claim against the motorist seems pretty meritless. I haven't really seen anything to suggest that the lawsuit was brought in "poor taste." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Perhaps the towing company should sue Hancock's father for not instilling better values into a son who drank, drove, and wrecked their tow-truck? The Cardinals could sue for pain and suffering caused by the loss of a player mid-season...the restaurant could sue due to the negative publicity they have received. its a vicious cycle.. Josh's fault, and no one elses. How pathetic and rather sad his father is, trying to pin the balme on everyone but his own son. He'll never get over this tragedy until he comes to grip with the hard facts that it was no one elses fault his son was an alcoholic but his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I haven't really seen anything to suggest that the lawsuit was brought in "poor taste." I think that unless the bouncers were holding him down and the bartenders were dumping cocktails down his throat that it's in poor taste....but that's just me. Noone wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Without knowing the facts, I have a difficult time making such a judgment. The general media typically do not report lawsuits accurately, probably becuase they don't understand what is relevant to a lawsuit. Furthermore, such a judgment has little to do with the merits of the case. That being said: 1) If there is evidence that restaurant employees continued to serve Hancock when he was visibly intoxicated, depending on state law, there is likely a legitimate claim against the restaurant. 2) The claim against the towing company seems like a reach to me. 3) The claim against the motorist seems pretty meritless. I haven't really seen anything to suggest that the lawsuit was brought in "poor taste." Hancock's father, as administrator of his son's estate, may also be filing these suits as a counterbalance to impending suits from the Geo driver, tow truck driver/company, etc. To me, that would be a prudent thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I think that unless the bouncers were holding him down and the bartenders were dumping cocktails down his throat that it's in poor taste....but that's just me. Noone wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Well, I'm sure that your state has dramshop laws. Organize a campaign to get your state legislature to repeal them. While you're at it, ask them to write a law to protect establishments that serve alcohol (to take care of those pesky common law claims.) Do your civic duty and protect the people from poor taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Well, I'm sure that your state has dramshop laws. Organize a campaign to get your state legislature to repeal them. While you're at it, ask them to write a law to protect establishments that serve alcohol (to take care of those pesky common law claims.) Do your civic duty and protect the people from poor taste. that lawyer lobby is quite strong to go up against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Well, I'm sure that your state has dramshop laws. Organize a campaign to get your state legislature to repeal them. While you're at it, ask them to write a law to protect establishments that serve alcohol (to take care of those pesky common law claims.) Do your civic duty and protect the people from poor taste. If you stop for happy hour after work tonight, have too many drinks, decide to drive home and hit a parked car along the highway who's fault is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.