This is just nuts
Hancock's father sues over pitcher's death
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.
I can see some basis for this, although the MADD web page for Missouri says they don't have a social host law (on further research I guess that only applies to private individuals serving alcohol in their homes[1]). But at this point my reality diverges from that of Hancock père:
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 lawsuit claimed Tolar 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. A police report said the car 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?"
Um, from what I hear, your client's son (1) had a BAC twice the legal limit, (2) was speeding, (3) was using his cell phone, and (4) was not wearing a seat belt. As someone said on the Canucks newsgroup, where I got the link from, "I can't believe he's not suing the car company for installing an ignition and a gas pedal, the cell phone company for allowing the phone to receive phone calls, and the US DOT for funding construction of I-64."
This is interesting, particularly the last one:
[1] Update: found another MADD page, for "dram shop": "A term referring to liability of establishments arising out of the sale of alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons or minor who subsequently cause death or injury to third-parties as a result of alcohol-related crashes." But that would not appear to govern liability due to intoxication as a cause of his own death. Wikipedia: "Missouri's recently revised dram shop law requires proof that the party demonstrates 'significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction.'"
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.
I can see some basis for this, although the MADD web page for Missouri says they don't have a social host law (on further research I guess that only applies to private individuals serving alcohol in their homes[1]). But at this point my reality diverges from that of Hancock père:
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 lawsuit claimed Tolar 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. A police report said the car 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?"
Um, from what I hear, your client's son (1) had a BAC twice the legal limit, (2) was speeding, (3) was using his cell phone, and (4) was not wearing a seat belt. As someone said on the Canucks newsgroup, where I got the link from, "I can't believe he's not suing the car company for installing an ignition and a gas pedal, the cell phone company for allowing the phone to receive phone calls, and the US DOT for funding construction of I-64."
This is interesting, particularly the last one:
- 23 states permit parents and legal guardians to provide alcohol to their minor children or wards.
- 8 states allow a person age 21 years or older to provide alcohol to his or her underage spouse.
- 9 states permit alcohol to be served to minors in connection with religious services.
- 11 states permit alcohol to be given to minors in connction with medical treatment.
- 3 states permit educational institutions to provide alcohol to minors in connection with being a student or for educational purposes.
[1] Update: found another MADD page, for "dram shop": "A term referring to liability of establishments arising out of the sale of alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons or minor who subsequently cause death or injury to third-parties as a result of alcohol-related crashes." But that would not appear to govern liability due to intoxication as a cause of his own death. Wikipedia: "Missouri's recently revised dram shop law requires proof that the party demonstrates 'significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction.'"