[wallinbl]

ESPN.com: Hancock's father files suit against restaurant

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.

Mike Shannon's Restaurant is a defendant in the case along with Shannon's daughter, Patricia Shannon Van Matre, the restaurant manager.

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 alcohol content of nearly twice the legal limit when he crashed into the back of the tow truck. He was also speeding and using a cell phone and wasn't wearing a seat belt, police chief Joe Mokwa said after the accident. Marijuana was also found in the SUV.

So, your son gets hammered and crashes into a vehicle with lights on top of it that wasn't even moving, and your move is to file suit against the tow truck driver and the guy that needed a tow? That pretty much makes you an asshat. But, my real question is why stop there? Why not sue the cops for not getting there fast enough? Why not sue everyone in the bar for not stopping your son from driving? Why not sue the SUV maker for not realizing your son was going to drive their vehicle while toasted?

[peeb]

The government, for building a road that was unsafe at any speed?

[ghporter]

In every state I know of it is illegal to sell or provide alcohol in a place of business to someone who is or appears to be intoxicated-for this very reason. As for suing the tow truck company and operator, was the truck properly lit? Did the driver have flares or other indicators deployed? I really don't see a reason to sue the driver whose breakdown the tow truck was there to deal with, but this is not a logical situation. How would any of us react if our child was killed? I think the father is not acting as rationally as one might hope, and he's trying to restore his son's memory and image through placing blame on other people. If they served him drinks when Hancock was obviously drunk, they SHOULD be sued and have to pay through the nose, plus lose their liquor license. If the tow truck driver was not properly situated and did not have the proper signals in place, he should be sued and have to pay as well. But the idea that all this will help anyone is ludicrous; the guy got really drunk, drove without a seatbelt, while on the phone, and at a high rate of speed, so he did this to himself. He had help though, and maybe a lot.

[peeb]

It is tragic that the guys son died. It truly is, and totally understandable that he wants to lash out. The fact is though, it is perfectly legal to serve drinks to someone to the point where they may be far over the limit to drive. There must be some element of personal responsibility for this kind of thing.

[Salty]

I'm sorry in this day and age anyone who drinks and drives is just stupid. It's sad that he died but. Perhaps the father should be sued for not fathering better.

[Mastrap]

That's exactly right. If you drink and drive then you're an idiot and all bets are off.

[Tenacious Dyl]

I agree as well... I don't see what the hell could possibly justify these lawsuits. The guy gets himself drunk, and whether a bartender helped or not, he was probably going to buy booze and get sloshed anyway. Then he chose not to use his seatbelt, and drive about 90 mph right into a tow truck. I guess the pot was backup.

From what I've heard, this wasn't his first time taking a few sips before driving either. Nothing is more disgusting sometimes than someone dieing in such a pitiful way, while at the same time having a relative trying to cash out by taking those who really had no fault in the matter to court. Blah.

[zro]

He ought to sue himself for raising his son to be so irresponsible.

[highstakes]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In every state I know of it is illegal to sell or provide alcohol in a place of business to someone who is or appears to be intoxicated-for this very reason.

It is. I worked at a grocery store, and at a restaurant. Its lot easier to identify the drunks in the stores, but at a restaurant...its hard. If we have a semi-busy night, its hard to keep track of how many drinks person X had...or to keep track of what kind of shots their "friends" ordered for them...etc. Most times if we see people having hard time walking out the door, we will call a cab...but there are plenty of time where we had to call the cops because the drunk guy was driving and the sober one was riding shotgun

[Buckaroo]

Don't people have to be harmed in some way to sue? Maybe someone smarter in Law can explain. What I'm trying to say is, he has to prove he was harmed in his sons death. I don't mean lost feelings, love, etc. I mean, he has to prove he has an actual loss due to this. He could be held liable for 100% of all attorney fees from the other side if he looses. I believe that depends on if the judge determines his lawsuits are frivilous (spelling).

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

That's exactly right. If you drink and drive then you're an idiot and all bets are off.

Yep.

Additionally, it's literally impossible to tell if somebody is intoxicated or not by looking at them. Some people can act perfectly straight while they're trashed, if they have to (myself included).

Additionally, it's not illegal to be over the legal limit - it's illegal to DRIVE while over it. There's no way the staff could've known he was going to drive.

Anyway, this is pure idiocy, and NEEDS to be thrown out of court with the father paying legal fees for all parties he sued, or it sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Don't people have to be harmed in some way to sue? Maybe someone smarter in Law can explain. What I'm trying to say is, he has to prove he was harmed in his sons death. I don't mean lost feelings, love, etc. I mean, he has to prove he has an actual loss due to this.

You are mistaken. It's entirely possible to sue for emotional distress.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Additionally, it's not illegal to be over the legal limit - it's illegal to DRIVE while over it. There's no way the staff could've known he was going to drive.

Precisely. Just because his alcohol levels were about twice the legal amount (for driving!), that doesn’t make him sloshed. I don’t know what the limit is exactly in Missouri (?), but assuming it’s 0.5 as in most countries here, that would give him a blood alcohol content of perhaps around 1.0, which is not enough to appear severely intoxicated or have trouble standing on your legs—but still too much to drive.

Originally Posted by ghporter

In every state I know of it is illegal to sell or provide alcohol in a place of business to someone who is or appears to be intoxicated-for this very reason.

Again, I don’t know the intricacies of the letter of the laws, but surely, in a bar, it cannot be illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is intoxicated at all? That way, no bar would be allowed to serve more than one drink to each customer, since after one drink you are technically intoxicated, right? Or do you mean intoxicated in the sense that you’ve pretty much lost control of your senses? ’Cause in that case, the legal limit would either have to be very high, or this guy would have to have a blood alcohol content much higher than twice the legal limit for this law to apply to the restaurant in question.



Also, I know it’s not illegal in the US (it should be), but anyone who drives while using a handset cell phone is as much an idiot as anyone who drives under the influence.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Precisely. Just because his alcohol levels were about twice the legal amount (for driving!), that doesn’t make him sloshed. I don’t know what the limit is exactly in Missouri (?), but assuming it’s 0.5 as in most countries here, that would give him a blood alcohol content of perhaps around 1.0, which is not enough to appear severely intoxicated or have trouble standing on your legs—but still too much to drive.

I think in most states, it's .08, which would put him at .16 or so. You have the decimal point in the wrong p lace. 0.5 is the point at which most people die. If you don't die, you will surely need medical assistance. Luckily, you're likely to have passed out before reaching that level.

[macroy]

The cell phone company since he was on the phone when it happened
The person he was talking to
The pusher that sold him the marijuana
The car manufacture for not coming out with a car that can avoid accidents
yada yada yada....


You know, someone had a good point about the emotional impact of his father, which may have brought on this "I hold everybody responsible" attitude. That is almost understandable..... But then I read the article, and saw the comments from Hancock's legal representative... it occurs to me that they are all just a bunch of jackasses.

The trend of holding everyone else responsible for one's lack of common sense is starting to get annoying.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Again, I don’t know the intricacies of the letter of the laws, but surely, in a bar, it cannot be illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is intoxicated at all? That way, no bar would be allowed to serve more than one drink to each customer, since after one drink you are technically intoxicated, right? Or do you mean intoxicated in the sense that you’ve pretty much lost control of your senses? ’Cause in that case, the legal limit would either have to be very high, or this guy would have to have a blood alcohol content much higher than twice the legal limit for this law to apply to the restaurant in question.

It's a difficult thing to handle, but restaurants and especially bars MUST monitor their customers' status and cut them off if they "appear" intoxicated. Since the wording is pretty ambiguous in most states, this becomes fodder for lawsuits. Frequently the management sets limits for how many drinks a customer can order in a specified period of time, and that's how they handle it, but it's not at all foolproof. A whole lot of people can get REALLY loaded pretty quickly and not look drunk, so just counting drinks isn't very accurate. On the other hand, getting one's blood alcohol level to TWICE the legal limit (which means anywhere between 1.6% to 2.0% BAC or higher) takes PLENTY of drinks, and the restaurant that served Hancock must have known how many drinks they served him because nobody drinks for free.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Also, I know it’s not illegal in the US (it should be), but anyone who drives while using a handset cell phone is as much an idiot as anyone who drives under the influence.

I'm firmly convinced that a large proportion of the drivers in the San Antonio area shouldn't be allowed ANY distractions-no kids, no other adults, no radio/CD/iPod, no phone, NOTHING. In fact, many of these people should be required to take the bus (which would probably mean our bus service would get better-tons more riders means a lot more revenue!). I'm amazed at the number of people I see driving with a handset glued to their ear, and their eyes firmly fixed FORWARD, whether they're driving in a straight lane or going through an intersection. Can't these people just be alone for a few minutes? Cripes!

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by zro 

He ought to sue himself for raising his son to be so irresponsible.

You win.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I think in most states, it's .08, which would put him at .16 or so. You have the decimal point in the wrong p lace. 0.5 is the point at which most people die. If you don't die, you will surely need medical assistance. Luckily, you're likely to have passed out before reaching that level.

He may not have the decimal in the wrong place. Different countries report blood chemistries in different units.

For example, blood sugar is reported in mg/dL in the United States, and in most of the rest of the world it is reported in mmol/L. For example, a blood sugar of 90 mg/dL (which is a normal value) would be 4.995 mmol/L.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by zro 

He ought to sue himself for raising his son to be so irresponsible.

Wow what a cold and unfeeling response. The father just lost his son and you now blame him?

Back to the topic at hand, it is sad that in this day and age people don't take personal responsibility I suspect we're all to blame on some level. Regardless that its the law for a bar to monitor my consumption. Its my act of drinking that got me drunk and I got behind a wheel. As tragic is this was, nobody held a gun to his head to drink or worse get behind the wheel.

There's been too much education about drinking and driving to have any excuse and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price with his life.

[Oisín]

Yeah, I didn’t have the decimal wrong—we just measure blood alcohol levels in per mil, rather than per cent. I always forget to do the maths when talking about them in English, since legal limits of 0.5 or 0.8 are just so ingrained in my brain. Kind of like I find it impossible to talk about wind speeds with Americans, since we measure them in m/s, not... uh, mph, or whatever it is you use that’s not the same as we do

Originally Posted by ghporter

On the other hand, getting one's blood alcohol level to TWICE the legal limit (which means anywhere between 1.6% to 2.0% BAC or higher) takes PLENTY of drinks, and the restaurant that served Hancock must have known how many drinks they served him because nobody drinks for free.

If we take 0.16–0.20 (per cent this time), then, that still doesn’t require much. I haven’t read up on the case so I don’t know the details, but say Hancock came to the restaurant after having already had, perhaps, three drinks (whiskey, vodka, cognac, I don’t know; something with some alcohol in it) just before going there. He might then already have 0.08 or so. If he drank, say, half a bottle of wine (3–4 glasses) in the restaurant over a period of an hour or two, and then going straight out and driving, his BAC would be pretty close to twice the legal limit, no?

With our 0.05 limit here, we usually say that a grown man can have approximately one glass of wine per hour in the time leading up to his driving a car without going over the limit; anything more, and you very easily go above 0.05.

Add to that that this was a restaurant, not a bar or a club. He might have had something to drink immediately before coming there, in which case he most likely wouldn’t really be feeling it much yet when he got there, and then he remained seated for a couple of hours in the restaurant, while drinking wine. He wouldn’t appear intoxicated while sitting there, but would probably feel it when he stood up and went outside—already pretty much outside the restaurant’s ‘range’, so to speak.

On the other hand, he might just have been in the restaurant for an hour, and in that space of time have ordered (and received) 15 vodka shots. There are lots of factors not available to us here that might determine to a greater degree whether or not the restaurant is or is not to blame for serving him however much they served him.

[wallinbl]

How much does a breathalyzer cost? I'd like to see them installed in bars. I've always been curious to know what my BAC is. If I sit for 90 minutes and have two beers while eating dinner, am I okay or not? I usually base my decision on how I feel - sometimes two beers seems to have no effect; other times I clearly know I'm affected.

It would be cool to have one by the door of the bar with little disposable tips for sanitary purposes. The law says .08, but I have no way to measure myself, so it's hard to comply.

[TETENAL]

I think the idea is that you don't drink at all when you are going to drive. 0.8 ‰ is a grace tolerance.

Pubs measuring your BAC before serving you drinks would be ridiculous. The whole point of a pub is to get drunk.

[ort888]

The bar did offer to get Hancock a cab and he refused it. What else are they supposed to do?

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The bar did offer to get Hancock a cab and he refused it. What else are they supposed to do?

that is when you call the police. they will take care of it.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I think the idea is that you don't drink at all when you are going to drive. 0.8 ‰ is a grace tolerance.

Pubs measuring your BAC before serving you drinks would be ridiculous. The whole point of a pub is to get drunk.

0.08% is a "grace tolerance"? That is one absolutely massive "grace tolerance" (I assume you meant 0.08%, not 0.8%).

The limit Australia-wide for full licenses is 0.05%, and the limit for learners and provisional license holders is 0.0% (no tolerance).

0.08% means you can have a drink or two within a couple of hours and still drive legally.

Unfortunately, it's an arbitrary measurement... and alcohol impacts some people more than others.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

that is when you call the police. they will take care of it.

The police have better things to do than taxi drunks between bars. Imagine there was a real emergency while they were doing this "duty".

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

The police have better things to do than taxi drunks between bars. Imagine there was a real emergency while they were doing this "duty".

Are you sure? Their duty is not to be a taxi, but to stop him from driving on the roads while drunk. Had they done that in this scenario, there would be one less dead person. Maybe they would have otherwise nabbed a guy stealing from a record store or something, but I'd say saving a life is "better"

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Are you sure? Their duty is not to be a taxi, but to stop him from driving on the roads while drunk. Had they done that in this scenario, there would be one less dead person. Maybe they would have otherwise nabbed a guy stealing from a record store or something, but I'd say saving a life is "better"

Fair point, but if that's all they did, it would be abused.

[peeb]

The more you keep them busy taxiing, the less time they have to abuse their power in other ways.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The more you keep them busy taxiing, the less time they have to abuse their power in other ways.

Touché.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Wow what a cold and unfeeling response. The father just lost his son and you now blame him?

Back to the topic at hand, it is sad that in this day and age people don't take personal responsibility I suspect we're all to blame on some level. Regardless that its the law for a bar to monitor my consumption. Its my act of drinking that got me drunk and I got behind a wheel. As tragic is this was, nobody held a gun to his head to drink or worse get behind the wheel.

There's been too much education about drinking and driving to have any excuse and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price with his life.

That's the most wishy-washy post I've ever read. First, you tell a guy he's "cold and unfeeling" for telling the dad he should sue himself. Then, in the next sentence, you agree with him that none of the people sued are responsible for his death.

So which is it? Should he be allowed to sue? Are these people responsible for his son's death? Or, is the father a complete asshole who is looking for a nice payout (i.e., make a little dough off his son's death)? I vote the latter.

Hancock was irresponsible and it's NOBODY'S fault but his own that he got himself killed. His dad is trying to make a buck off his son's death. THAT is what is screwed up about this whole thing. I hold no sympathy for him AT ALL after reading this. Suing the guy who's car broke down? Give me an f'ing break...

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The bar did offer to get Hancock a cab and he refused it. What else are they supposed to do?

Again, another reason it's stupid to sue the bar. They can't force someone to take a cab. They offered, he refused. Responsibility back on Hancock.

[ort888]

The other thing to remember is that pro baseball players are treated like royalty in this town (I'm from St. Louis). Especially in an establishment like Shannon's, which is a sports themed bar. Having Cardinals players in the bar is like having Tom Cruise in your LA nightclub. It's a huge deal.

You can bet that they would not call the cops on him. They would never dare do something like that. It would be like calling the cops on the Queen of England.

At the end of the day, it's just a very unfortunate incident and the only one to blame is Hancock himself. Between the drinking, the speeding, the pot and the cellphone, how people can try to pin it on anyone but him is ridiculous. I'm just glad that no one else got hurt by his irresponsible actions.

[residentEvil]

i wasn't saying they would be the taxi. but they could/would take him away (non celebrity speaking). bar calls on a drunk patron, they write that up as drunk and disordely/public. whatever it is called. they just take the drunk to jail.

now, do some people get off/away and the cops don't do anything. yes. but chances are, someone well over the legal limit, no matter what their fame, get to sleep it off in the drunk tank.

[Oisín]

(I assume you meant 0.08%, not 0.8%)

Another one? He meant exactly what he wrote: 0.8‰ aka zero point eight pro mil.

[ghporter]

The BAC is expressed differently if it's in terms of concentration or mass. Basically, if it's given in terms of concentration, it's in grams per deciliter, it's listed as "0.08%" but if it's in terms of mass (grams per kilo) then the same concentration is shown as 0.80%.

The U.S. used to have a mishmash of different limits, usually around 0.10g/dL, but it was found that the level of impairment at that concentration was WAY past "impairment." Most, if not all states have lowered the threshold of "legally drunk" for the purposes of determining whether a person is "driving while intoxicated" to 0.08g/dL.

[OldManMac]

I heard his father is using the prestigious law firm of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe.

[climber]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Wow what a cold and unfeeling response. The father just lost his son and you now blame him?

Back to the topic at hand, it is sad that in this day and age people don't take personal responsibility I suspect we're all to blame on some level. Regardless that its the law for a bar to monitor my consumption. Its my act of drinking that got me drunk and I got behind a wheel. As tragic is this was, nobody held a gun to his head to drink or worse get behind the wheel.

There's been too much education about drinking and driving to have any excuse and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price with his life.

Why not blame the father? He seems to have no problem blaming others and dragging them into court, even if their liability is a wild stretch at best. The father had more to do with this tragic crime than anyone else that is still alive.

There is only one person that is to blame. And thankfully nobody else had to pay the price for his selfishness or his stupidity. Darwinism worked this time.

[Snow-i]

Can anyone tell me why this is not 100% his own fault?

The bar is not responsible for getting you home safely. Thats on YOU. This nonsense that a bar is responsible for people making bad decisions is absolutely ridiculous! Its along the same lines as McDonalds being responsible for making you fat. Offering him a cab is the right thing to do, but they can't force him to get in it and they surely aren't legally responsible for calling the cops when he decides to get himself killed.

The fact that his father is sueing everyone involved is just trashing his son's memory. Its sad yeah but the only person you can point the finger at is the driver of the car. And he's DAMN LUCKY that he didn't kill anyone else that night. Think of if he had hit a car with kids in it or killed someone else who was doing everything right. That would be the real tragedy.

[Ganesha]

Numerous people in this thread are incorrectly placing % signs on things.

A % sign, implies percentage (parts per hundred).
g/dl, is pph, and can be expressed directly has a percentage.
g/kg, is ppt (parts per thousand), it is incorrect place a % sign next to it unless you convert to percentage first, by multiplying by (1 pph/10 ppt)

i.e. (100 g/dl = 100 pph = 100% = 1000 ppt = 1000 g/kg)

In any case, the young man is to blame for the accident, no one else.

[hyteckit]

I agree with zro. Josh Hancock should sue himself for raising such a irresponsible kid. Imagine if Josh Hancock had killed the tow truck driver or the guy in the stalled car. I'm sure their family would sue Josh Hancock's dad.

[Agasthya]

He lied to Patricia -- he told her that he was going to walk to the Westin (a few blocks away) and that's why he didn't need the cab. There is absolutely no way she could have known that he was going to drive since he told her that he had no intention of driving.

It should also be noted that he showed up too hung over to play a few days prior to this incident and also that the car he wrecked was a rental because he got into an accident with his car a few days prior.

I'm just amazed that his parents don't shut up and let this thing go away -- there is no good that will come from all these lawsuits.