OT-Hancock's father sues over pitcher's death

[Jenn D]

Absolutely ridiculous. Josh Hancock's father is suing the restraurant that served him the alcohol and the tow truck company for his son's death. It was reported that his blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit at the time of the accident. HE CHOSE to drive...



So what now? Can someone sue a liquor store for selling someone 5 cases of beer if that person drinks it all, drives, and kills someone?



The fact that he is allowed to sue someone else for his SON'S decision is partly what is wrong with today's society.



Article:

 

[TomT]

Kind of like suing McDonalds because it made you a lard ass.

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

The fact that he is allowed to sue someone else for his SON'S decision is partly what is wrong with today's society.

I couldn't agree with you more. Some money hungry lawyer is taking advantage of his not being able to accept the fact that his son was drunk of Josh's own doing and hit a tow truck while talking on his cell phone. Josh's dad needs to get a clue. The lawyer taking the case needs to be disbarred!!! If drunk college girls can sue U-Haul for flipping their Ford Explorer while towing a U-Haul trailer while doing 70 mph and win; it would not surprise me if Josh's dad will win. :angry:

 

[J Piroth]

Ridiculous. And, just as stupid...

 

[mookie]

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.

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. Marijuana also was found in the SUV.

If the father receives a dime from these innocent people when Hancock was clearly in the wrong, then something is REALLY broken with our justice system.

 

[A K]

and the tow truck company for his son's death.

The restaurant--maybe. Some states have laws prohibiting a bartender from serving a visibly intoxicated person. But the tow truck driver?!! Get real. I know the theory is but for the truck being in the break-down lane, Hancock would have lived. Perhaps. Or, he would have hit a tree once he took his exit.



That is pure crap.

 

[Jenn D]

Or, he would have hit a tree once he took his exit.

Then the father would sue the restraunt and the landscaping company that put the tree there.



Let's hope karma pays this guy a visit...

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

Just another point at how bad the legal system is. Why doesn't the restaurant sue the father for not teaching his son not to drink and drive? This guy sounds like one of those parents who's son could do no wrong. I'll bet anything that Josh didn't even seem intoxicated at the place. He's probably done it many times before and I know alot of people who can drink a hell of alot, and still seem sober. (maybe it's because by that time I'm sloshed out of my skull from trying to keep up with them) Anyway, this guy needs a rude wake-up call and realize his son made a mistake that cost him his life and deal with it. Not sit there and point fingers.:angry:

 

[Mike Wilson]

The death of a child ( for any reason) is hard to deal with. What this father needs

is a good support group, some time to grieve and accept the fact that his adult son

made a bad descision for which he is (was) ultimately responsible for. And yes, he

probably nees some good, honest legal advice. But really, is there such a thing, anymore?



He is in between the Denial and Anger/Blame stage of grieving, which is the hardest stage

to deal with. He is absolutely no different than any other parent who has lost a child

to a senseless accident, but for the fact his son was a celebrity, and his actions were presented to us in the media.

 

[Ron Tobias]

He is absolutely no different than any other parent who has lost a child

to a senseless accident,

What you're saying is every other parent who loses a child in a senseless accident sues innocent parties? Hmm.... I think not!



Don't get me wrong, I'm not a heartless guy, but c'mon. Why should the lives of the innocent parties be put through the turmoil of lawsuits to appease the fragile emotional state of the father?

 

[Josh Langel]

Or, he would have hit a tree once he took his exit.

Or he would have killed a mother and her van full of kids. No remorse for the guy who decided to get into his car after being drunk... and he knew he was drunk...



The father suing? Makes me want to get drunk myself.

 

[Matthew W]

Probably trying to get those innocents from suing to begin with ...

 

[Gerald Pierce]

I would never make a good judge. I am of the mindset that if you are breaking the law (ie: drinking and driving, driving on a suspended license, fleeing a police officer, etc) you can not sue for any damages that occur during that offense (the police run you off the road and you are crippled for life, scarred, killed, etc).



His father needs a wakeup call. He is lucky his son did not kill anyone else, they could sue him for failing to raise his son right.....



Hopefully, they other partys have a good lawyer and can make his father pay their legal expenses when all is said and done.

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

Suprised that he is not suing whoever his cellphone plan was with as well, and the girlfriend because I think he was on the phone with her.

 

[A K]

One other thing--MO follows the theory of comparative negligence, under which guilt in a civil case can be apportioned. Thus, of Hancock's father wanted $1,000,000, and the jury found that Hancock was 90% at fault, his father would receive $100,000. But, at the same time, the opposition can file counterclaims for their injuries. So, whatever recovery the father is entitled to is offset by 90% of whatever amounts claimed by the defendants (assuming they sue the estate, and the father is suing on behalf of the estate). Using the same calculation, and for simplicity, if one defendant claimed $200,000 in damages, that defendant would be entitled to $180,000. The estate then would be forced to pay $80,000 to the defendant.



I really doubt the father will see a dime.

 

[Mike Dziubina]

i just don't understand why people are so quick to sue for these types of accident...it isn't going to bring his son back...nor will it change his situation...makes me believe he is trying to make some $$$ off his son's mistake...

 

[jason baker]

don't know what to say, but, what an idiot

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

Thats terrible lawyering- he also should sue: The glassware company for making large containers without warning labels, the ice for failing to melt fast enough to dilute the drinks, the maker of the chairs he sat in for being comfy enough to sit in for hours, the carmaker for failing to make a vehicle that can drive away from a crash like this, the moon for failing to be bright enough so he could see at night and the sun for going down.......:angry: