You seem to be suggesting that either the case will be found so frivolous that the defendants will be able to recover costs, or the plaintiff so deserving that it is fair that the defendants will not be able to recover costs. Would but that were so. In reality, there is a massive excluded middle in which the defendants get undeservedly shafted.
I am sorry if it appeared to you that I was misquoting. I didn’t mean the quote marks to suggest a direct quote, but rather to suggest I was using a common phrase or cliche, which I thought represented the breezy way in which you suggested the case could be disposed of. I don’t know how summary judgment works where you are, but around here in a multiparty dispute with several factual angles, they are a lot of work.
Real work in the sense of work costing significant fees as opposed to trivial amounts of work not costing significant fees.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports he wasn’t high
(not that I’m a marijuana apologist, just in the interest of fighting ignorance). Also from the OP: I don’t believe the canceled game was nationally-televised, but I think the first one after the canceled one was (and had been scheduled to be, even before the accident happened). No cite for that though, just my recollection.
Exactly what stage of the grieving process is “Gather up my lawyers and see who the fuck we can sue because my son was driving drunk?”
According to this article, he is suing the driver of the stalled vehicle because he was “negligent in allowing his vehicle to reach the point where it stalled on the highway and for failing to move it out of the way of oncoming traffic.” According the police report, the vehicle “became stalled when it spun out after being cut off by another vehicle.” So, some poor schmuck is driving along and gets cut off, causing him to spin out and stall. And it’s *his *fault that a drunken idiot crashes into the tow truck and dies? Bull fucking shit.
This guy Hancock is an ass, as was his son. He’s just lucky no one else died. Then the *real *lawsuits would have started flying.
Some combination of Denial (my son can’t really have gotten himself killed), Anger (I’ll get back at the world for taking my son) and Bargaining (somehow I can win my son back)?
Anyway, I hope for everyone’s sake that he can reach Acceptance soon and realize he’s not helping anyone with this besides his lawyer.
I reckon by now everyone name in his suit has almost certainly hired lawyers, lawyers who need retainers. Or at the very least they have already been aggravated by this man’s stupid suit. His withdrawing his suit will be little consolation to all involved.
I have little respect for people who sue because their family members get killed while drunk-driving and who sue somebody who just had the bad luck of being in the same coordinates as the drunk driver. My father got himself in a similar situation and it took him years to fight it off.
This guy is the biggest asshole on the planet. He knows his money train is over now, and is trying to make it continue. Suing the stalled car driver for his car stalling? Why not sue the cunt your precious angel son was talking to on the phone as well? Fuck you, and fuck your dead asshole son.
I’m wondering why he isn’t suing the cellphone company – after all, if their device hadn’t been distracting his attention, he might have noticed a car and tow-truck on the road ahead.
I agree with Sublight as to why someone might think a lawsuit is justified, but really, cooler heads have to prevail. It’s been under a month since he died, I don’t think there’s a 1 month statute of limitations on wrongful death lawsuits, you can wait a little bit to digest the situation and make a sensible decision.
I can only hope the other people involved countersue the shit out of Hancock’s estate, for his reckless actions. As a juror, I’d be more than happy to give them piles of money for whatever outlandish damages they claim, given the massive jerkishness of the family in filing these suits.
I use cunt in the way its used in the UK- my use here doesn’t indicate any strong feelings against the woman.
But… if you’re talking to a guy *drunk off his ass and driving * and you are arranging to have him meet you for more drinks, knowing he is wasted and has to drive to meet you, yeah, you’re partly to blame as well. No way in hell would I say anything else to someone calling me driving drunk but “quit fucking driving, right now. I will come and get you.” If she had pleaded with him to pull over, call a cab and go home, that’s one thing, but that’s not what was reported. So yeah, a cunt for encouraging a guy to drive drunk. Same thing as if I encourage a gunman to open fire in a mall.
The lawsuit against the restaurant might have some legs. If Missouri has a dram shop liability laws then the restaurant can possibly be liable. *
The drivers and probably the restaurant will be defended by the insurance company’s lawyers. These guys are either already on retainer or possibly employees of the Insurance company.
I suspect that there will be counterclaims filed by the driver of the tow truck and the driver of the stalled car.
I don’t know anything about Missouri, Missouri state law, Missouri Civil procedure or even the state of Missouri. I am not positive that they are a real state or that they exist. Come to think of it, I am not sure any of you exist. YMMV.
After the restaurant wins the suit, they should start offering a drink called the “Josh Hancock” that consists of a 24-oz. glass filled with nothing but various hard liquors.
How do *you *know that *she *knew he was drunk and driving dangerously? Many drunks are capable of “faking sober.”
She *encouraged *him? Again, what do you know that we don’t? (Key word : know. Stuff you pull out of your ass is not knowledge.) Unless you consider your shit to be a revelation. Do you?
Quite the buzz about this here in St. Louis. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Maybe, on some planet, on some distant day, he could have a case against the restaurant-- if he was clearly drunk and they kept serving him, well, that’s irresponsible at best. (I’m surprised the father isn’t trying to sue the Cardinal fans who undoubtedly bought Hancock a few rounds that night.) But the poor dude whose car stalled? “Hey, it’s not enough that my son ATTACKED you, wrecked your car, and did his level best to brutally kill you, though he didn’t succeed. Now you have to pay me for the privelege!”
Ok semantics, enabled, not encouraged. Three a.m., and for no reason he is faking sober? Why? If sober can be faked, why didn’t he fake himeself into thinking he was sober and therefore drive correctly? I doubt someone so plastered they plow into a parked car on the side of the road would sound sober. Has anyone ever walked into a bar at three a.m. who wasn’t drunk? But you are right, I know not anything for a fact, but is this not a thread on the facts of the case.
Perhaps but it is very upsetting to the people getting sued regardless of having insurance.
Quick story. When I was 17 years old, I borrowed my parent’s car to drive some friends home. We had previously spent the night playing board games at the house with my folks and did not partake in any alcohol or illegal substances.
About three miles from my home, a drunk driver lost control of his car, crossed over into my lane and hit us head on. Fortunately, my parents had a big car with some weigh and we suffered a couple of broken bones and some lacerations requiring stitches from when the dashboard split open. Unfortunately, the teenage boy who hit us was in a little sports car and was in very bad shape. He did pull through after being in a coma for several weeks and had to go through many months of rehab and P.T.
About three months later, my parents and I both received notice that we were being sued for improper lane usage and reckless driving. Of course it was all nonsense and I really don’t know what the motivation was at that time and still don’t. Perhaps he didn’t remember, perhaps he lied to his parents as to what happened?
The case took three years to go to court. (A jury trial). They did not succeed but over those three years, my parents agonized over what could happen if this kid’s family succeed in their suit. Did they carry enough insurance? Could they lose their home? Have my father’s wages garnished? This happened over twenty years ago and yet the memory of those three years still put a knot in my stomach.
It is easy to say that insurance company is suing insurance company but for the actual victims of such a suit, it is very personal and very distressing.
Of course not. If they weren’t paying him millions of dollars he couldn’t afford with self-destructive lifestyle. How dare The Cardinals enable Josh Hancock to do this?
No weeping necessary but moist eyes are permitted.