They’re not listed because they went to Tupelo for the funeral.
They’re not listed because they went to Tupelo for the funeral.
True, it was the sudden, rapid, uncontrolled deceleration and impact that killed him…
yes the father’s grieving for a lost son, yes it is unfortunate, but the father is clearly being a prat, the sole cause of his son’s death (aside from the actual physical forces involved) was the series of poor decisions he made before getting behind the wheel
Certainly not if the restaraunt’s manager offered to call him a cab, as had been reported.
Toxicology came back yesterday–no recent weed in his system.
I just hope someone returns the favor and sues his son’s estate.
The lawsuit says Hancock’s being drunk was “involuntary”.
Because…people forced the drinks down his throat at gunpoint? :rolleyes:
Mabye they’re using a definition of “involuntary” that we’re not familiar with.
It isn’t about the facts?
Nope clearly the facts have no place in some folks stupid posts.
But since this is not a thread about the facts of the case we can just make up any ol’ shit we want to.
Maybe the reason Hancock swerved but didn’t hit the brakes is because nobody would assume that the vehicle ahead of you in your lane is PARKED?
Lets see, it’s three in the morning and your car is stalled in a driving lane of an Interstate because you were “almost” in an accident (almost? sounds to me like it was an accident, if instead of being spun out he had plowed into a guardrail, or slammed into a bridge abutment would that count as an accident?) what do you do? Move the car, put out flares, call 911?
Anybody else intrigued by the fact that the tow truck arrived at the initial accident before the cops did?
Chief Mokwa also said the truck had its emergency lights on. That should have been a clue that something out of the ordinary was going on.
I don’t know about the area of Missouri where this took place but towing companies around here have ways of spotting motorists in need by monitoring things like police scanners.
First off, tow trucks have big, bright, flashing yellow lights on the roof. This is usually accompanied by one or more white spot lights to help the driver see when hitching/loading the non-moving car.
Second, it’s kind of hard to move a stalled car by yourself. In some cases it’s next to impossible, even if it just won’t start.
Who said it was not? I missed that part.
The idiot father is not contesting where the tow truck was parked in relation to the street, he has a problem with no flares, and why it took him fifteen minutes to tow a car. Cars park or idle or stall in driving lanes every day- sober drivers can recognize when they do fairly easily.
A sober driver would have identified this and either braked or changed lanes, like a million sober drivers do every day on the freeway when traffic jams cause cars to be literally parked in the driving lane ahead of them. He tried to swerve, but I would go out on a limb and guess his identfying and reaction times were slowed by being plastered. That’s why there is a law agaianst driving drunk- it impairs your ability to drive correctly. A sober driver could better understand that when the lights on the tow truck are not moving, that that indicates a parked vehicle.
OTOH, truck driver Hargrove told the cops that he had been there five to 7 minutes.
So the poor guy spun out and stalled his car, with or without the interference of another driver who “cut him off”. He calls 911 and they dispatch a tow truck. They may or may not also dispatch police. After all, there appears to be no property damage (yet), no injuries (yet), and if another driver contributed to the original problem, he has long since departed. Nothing much for police to do there, except say “Yep, you’re stalled. A tow truck is coming!” and drive on into the night. On a heavily traveled road the cops might have parked nearby and behind the stalled vehicle and turned on their lights, to warn oncoming traffic. Then our moron would have plowed into the cruiser instead of the tow truck.
The tow truck driver would need some finite time to take down the stranded motorist’s billing info. Then he might have spent more time attempting to re-start the vehicle. Only after all of this would he have begun the process of “hooking up”. Neither 7 or 8 minutes, nor 10 or 15 minutes seem outlandish as legitimate elapsed time.
Private passenger vehicles rarely carry flares. Emergency vehicles do, but in my experience use them only to mark major, scattered problem scenes-- multiple vehicle accidents, spills of cargo, etc. A single stalled vehicle is usually marked by its own hazard flashers, and the multiple, high visibility lights on the emergency vehicle, in this case a tow truck. So far, nothing out of the ordinary here.
As for voluntary versus involuntary consumption of excessive amounts of alcohol, well, that stupidity speaks for itself. Show me evidence of a forced alcohol IV drip, or something similar, and I might be willing to listen to an “involuntary consumption” argument. Otherwise we’re dealing with a common drunken asshole who had too many and chose to drive anyway.
And only a lawyer (Doctor Who??) could characterize what the stranded motorist or the tow truck driver are being forced to endure as anything less than a giant, royal fucking over. These people will spend significant time, significant effort, significant funds, and a huge amount of unnecessary heartache dealing with their lawsuits, perhaps for years to come. They have zero assurance of being reimbursed even for their out-of-pocket expenses. Likely they will be stuck with costs even if their suits are settled swiftly and in their favor. Countersuit will only prolong the nightmare for them, incur additional costs, and remain problematic in eventual recovery.
And nothing will compensate them for the living nightmare itself. Depositions, court dates, lawyer meetings, clamoring media, neighbors looking askance, ad nauseum.
Bottom line-- yes, dad is a total asshole. He should drop the suits and make public apology for his over-reaching idiocy. Likelyhood of this happening? Yeah, right-- in this world?
Question- in the seven to fifteen minutes the tow truck was there, how many cars passed them by and didn’t plow into them?
Re: the “involuntary” intoxication issue:
According to today’s st. Louis Post Dispatch, that is the only way to sue an establishment for serving drinks to someone over 21.
Unless new witnesses come forward, the restaurant and its manager have been dismissed from the suit.
Where are you getting that?
The Post-Dispatch’s article says that Missouri state didn’t find anything wrong with what they did (and thus won’t be bringing criminal charges or pulling their license). It doesn’t say anything about their being dismissed from the Hancocks’ suit.
KMOX’s coverage of the news conference some 15 minutes ago.
While they are officialy still party to the suit, they have been effectively dismissed unless, as I said, new witnesses supporting the plaintiff come forward.