motor

ZfrkS62 · 05-25-2007, 01:39 AM

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6846710

Baisically, a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher went and got bombed at a bar after a game. Dumb ass declined a cab from the bartender, got in his rental SUV (he smashed his other car up in a drunk driving crash 2 days prior) and on the way home, slams into a flatbed tow truck at 70+ mph killing him instantly. Cops found pot in his vehicle and toxicology reports put him at 2x the legal BAC limit.

Now his father is suing the bar that he was drinking at; the vehicle owner which the tow truck driver was assisting; the tow truck company; and the tow truck driver.

He blames the driver of the vehicle for allowing his car to get to the point where it would stall on the road and not moving it far enough out of the way. In reality, he lost control when avoiding someone who cut him off, according to the police report.

He blames the tow truck driver for spending an "exorbitant" amount of time assisting the vehicle and not contacting police or setting up road flares. The truck driver says he was there for about 7 minutes before the SUV hit his truck.

The only people here that i can see having any liability, is the bar that kept serving him drinks for 3 and a half hours.

But the fact of the matter is, this guy turned down the offer by the bartender to call him a cab, got in his rental car and drove home and killed himself on the way. His own damn fault through and through. Sure the bar is going to face some fines for not cutting him off when he appeared intoxicated. He has already caused one drunken wreck 2 days prior and did it again anyway.

what's worse is, the guy has the possibility of adding more people to the lawsuit later.

I am really hoping this gets thrown out. It's just plain ridiculous.

novass · 05-25-2007, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62

The only people here that i can see having any liability, is the bar that kept serving him drinks for 3 and a half hours.

But the fact of the matter is, this guy turned down the offer by the bartender to call him a cab, got in his rental car and drove home and killed himself on the way. His own damn fault through and through. Sure the bar is going to face some fines for not cutting him off when he appeared intoxicated. He has already caused one drunken wreck 2 days prior and did it again anyway.

I see what you are saying about the liability of the bar, but if the bar were busy or there were multiple bartenders, it would be really hard to tell when you should cut someone off unless blatantly obvious.

This is a stupid lawsuit through and through. I am sorry for the Father's loss, but come one, you have an alcoholic son that can't get his act together. It was no one's fault but his own.

ZfrkS62 · 05-25-2007, 02:19 AM

After 3 and a half hours though, it should be pretty obvious by listening to him order that he was bombed.

Mattk · 05-26-2007, 02:09 AM

The suit against the restaurant is very likely to succeed. It is negligent to serve drunken people alcohol and twice the legal limit means that it is almost certain he would have been visibly intoxicated before his last drink. Busy day or not, it is a duty of care. It was also negligent to have allowed him to drive a car after leaving the restaurant. This put others at risk. A judge will probably come down hard on the restaurant.

As to the other defendants, the tow truck driver and company will be linked through vicarious liability. The driver can potentially be at fault for blocking the road without any means of warning. However, considering every other driver prior to this Hancock fellow avoided crashing into the truck, this finding will be very unlikely. Furthermore, the tow truck driver was not doing anything unlawful. Taking his time, yes; a bit slow in following accepted road accident procedures, yes, but definitely far from unlawful and a very reasonable action which no reasonable person would fault. Similarly, the stalled car's driver will most likely not be held to be at fault.

The lawsuit aside, this is not good for the reputation of sport. These major league stars are public figures and any infractions are dealt with by "trial by media". Sad, yes, and it's bad for the development of young, up-and-coming players, but it happens. Players just have to deal with it. They play at the highest level, so they're going to be scrutinised. Self-control is essential not only if want to remain bankable and billable commerical, but if they want a job. Few teams will risk a player with a chequered criminal record.

ae86_16v · 05-26-2007, 04:14 AM

^ How about taking some responsibility yourself? How about putting the blame on yourself for getting wasted? Instead of the usual blame EVERYONE else?

As far as the dad is concerned. . . how about taking in that facts that your son was an asshole for driving drunk.

Nobody's fault but the freaking driver. I never hope someone to get hurt, but in this situation he brought it on himself.

As a baseball fan, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that they cancel games to honor him when none of the facts were out yet. Now they are basically honoring a Drunk driver that slammed into 2 other vehicles.

If anybody should sue, the tow truck driver and other driver of the stall car should sue his ass for crashing into them. You know he has money, so I would sue his ass for personal injury. Likewise for the restaurant, I would also sue him and his family for slander because this episode is hurting business.

I am sorry, but I have NO compassion for drinking and driving.

graywolf624 · 05-26-2007, 12:38 PM

The suit against the restaurant is very likely to succeed. It is negligent to serve drunken people alcohol and twice the legal limit means that it is almost certain he would have been visibly intoxicated before his last drink. Busy day or not, it is a duty of care. It was also negligent to have allowed him to drive a car after leaving the restaurant. This put others at risk. A judge will probably come down hard on the restaurant.

While it is that way, I beg to differ that it should be. You choose how much you consume.. Not the bar. You spend your money. Sides, its not like they let them drink themselves to death either. The car part is your responsibility.

novass · 05-26-2007, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by ZfrkS62

After 3 and a half hours though, it should be pretty obvious by listening to him order that he was bombed.

Maybe, maybe not. It could have been really loud inside and the bartender could have been very busy and distracted. :bah:

Either way I think is should be more of a personal responsibility than that of the bar or anyone else.

ZfrkS62 · 05-27-2007, 03:51 AM

i realized the truly sad thing about this bullshit suit: he's going to get money from it. Why? Because the owner of the stalled car probably can't afford to go to trial over this and will be forced to settle. The tow truck company will probably settle (or their insurance company, who ever is footing the bill..) the bar is the only defendant that will probably take it to court just because their liquor license is at stake.

the only hope these people have is that the judge whose desk this lands on, laughs at the stupidity of the father, and tosses the lawsuit in the trash.

This is my problem with our legal system. It's easier to file a lawsuit against someone for an outrageous amount, make the settlement price 50% less and bank on them settling to avoid lawyer fees, court costs and the larger amount. not to mention it provides an easy way out and makes the problem go away.

We need to get rid of the whole idea of a settlement. Either you make damn sure that the person you are suing is in the wrong, or shut the fuck up and accept responsibility for your own stupidity. Or in this case, your kid's stupidity.

ARMAN · 05-27-2007, 06:16 AM

WTF? bar have to take responsibility for you not getting too drunk?? :shock:

here just like in Russia you will be served till you drop... or start throwing up 8)

Mattk · 05-28-2007, 03:14 AM

While it is that way, I beg to differ that it should be.

Well, of course, the vast majority of the responsibility should, and will, lie with Hancock.

We need to get rid of the whole idea of a settlement.

Why? A settlement works both ways.

ZfrkS62 · 05-28-2007, 04:08 PM

^ because settlements open the door for abuse.

Doing away with settlements would protect people and businesses from being attacked with frivolous lawsuits for something stupid.

How many lawsuits have you read about that ended with "Company X settled the lawsuit out of court, but admitted no wrong doing." or "A spokesman for the company says that the settlement is not an admission of guilt."

Why did they settle? because it wasn't worth defending in court and was easier to pay the plaintiff off and sweep it under the rug.

It's kind of like buying the pot in poker.

Mattk · 05-30-2007, 02:35 AM

Why did they settle? because it wasn't worth defending in court and was easier to pay the plaintiff off and sweep it under the rug.

Yes, so it works both ways. Plaintiff gets compensated and company escapes with minimal damage. Yes, it is open for abuse, but you've got to balance it with the need for compensation. And efficiency.

But anyway, this guy's estate deserves very little. It was essentially, all his fault, with maybe some contributory negligence from the bar.

ZfrkS62 · 05-30-2007, 01:56 PM

^ His estate is just lucky he didn't kill the other drivers. Otherwise, they would be on the other end of a lawsuit.

Mattk · 06-03-2007, 07:45 PM

Oh, I'm assuming the tow truck's insurers will be asking this guy's insurers to cough up some dough to return to the truck back to it's original condition.