The father of Cards pitcher Josh Hancock is suing over his son's death. What do you think?

Question

First read this article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/05/24/hancock.lawsuit.ap/index.html?cnn=yes)

I'm sorry, you son is dead Mr. Hancock, but suing everyone else for his irresponsibility is not going to bring him back. And in the end it makes you look like a greedy a**hole.

Tony: Your point would be valid if they were just suing the restaurant - or even filing a complaint with ABC. But they are also suing the motorist whose car stalled and the tow truck driver who stopped to help. I can't see any rational justification for that.

Answer 1

He's an idiot. He's naming the tow truck driver and the guy who's car broke down as defendants as well. Just because he didn't raise his son the right way doesn't mean he can go around suing people for his son's actions. They should be suing Mr. Hancock for raising a stupid human being!

Answer 2

I'm with you. It is completely rediculous on his part to sue anybody. This just doesn't make any sense. I do feel sorry for his loss but this is not the way to deal with it. As a matter of fact it will make it even worse, because it will stretch this whole thing even further. The suit will take for ever and at the end he SHOULD be empty handed and out of a lot of money.
I am not a fan of all this suing that is going on over here at all. It starts with people suing McDonald's because the coffee was too hot and ends with people suing gun stores for legally selling guns. Now I could see if Hancock was under 21 and should not have gotten alcohol, but this was a grown azz man that made a poor decision and had to pay with his life.
I kinda have a feeling that the dad is a little embarassed by everything that came out with the marijuana and alcohol, and just tries to make excuses for his son.

Answer 3

The dad is blaming others for the things that his son did...I want this lawsuit to be a bust and I dont want the dad to win anything.

He wasnt with Josh, so he does not know exactly what happened and what were the events that led up to the crash. He doesnt know what really happened, so his lawsuit (like the part where the lawyer said that the tow truck MAY have been there before) is based entirely on assumptions and presumptions I think this lawsuit is frivolous and its a stupid thing to go after the restaurant and the towing company because his son chose to go there and his son crashed into the tow truck. Its not the restaurant's fault that his son was there without a drink for 32 hours...maybe his son just wanted to keep on drinking....

This lawsuit is preventing the court to put the criminals behind bars and its wasting the court's time.

Answer 4

certain. obviously his father become attempting to benefit. this is already been shown that Hancock become ingesting contained in the clubhouse and may want to have in basic terms as extremely had a damage on a thanks to the bar. If Hancock had his damage on a thanks to the bar might want to his father be suing the Cardinals company for giving him beer contained in the clubhouse? i'm able to't belive he's suing the tow truck motive force. That undesirable guy will likely lose his pastime over this.

Answer 5

suing who theres no suing anybody Mr. Hancocks son was an adult if he was old enough to order a drink he should have been old enough to be responsible thats the way society is always blaming someone for something i think society should sue Mr. Hancock for pretending to be a parent let alone a father

Answer 6

while true that bars have a responsibility to not serve patrons who are noticeably intoxicated, suing the towing company and driver and the stranded motorist is just pure insanity.

and im betting that even though hancocks blood level was twice the legal limit, that he was probably not falling over slurring speech drunk.

Answer 7

i honestly think this is ridiculous...although bartenders usually do cut people off at a certain number of drinks, it is not their responsibility...his son needed to be responsible and he clearly wasn't

as for suing the towing company and the driver, that is just ludicrous...i understand the point about not putting flares up and not attempting to move the truck out of traffic, but didn't it ever cross their mind that if he was drunk then he still might not avoid it?

Answer 8

It easy to criticize the dad because he's in grief right now. Perhaps his lawsuit is an attempt to prevent this type of thing from happening in this fashion again rather than personal gain. Also it might be an attempt to do "something", anything since he cannot bring his son back.
It is true Josh Hancock made his decision to act irresponsible and as a result he has left his parents, siblings, family and friends to mourn and and greive due to his poor choices.

Answer 9

Thanks to greedy lawyers we live in a litigious society who see dollar signs at the least little thing. Something like this is a horrible way to remember your child who died because he was driving drunk. It's a shame and I'm sure that Josh Hancock would not want to be remembered as the one who made his parents rich by his drunk driving. Shame on them, why don't they remember their son by proclaiming the importance of personal responsibility instead? Shame on them! Shame!

Answer 10

A grown man got drunk, was speeding, talking on a cell phone, and had dope in his vechile. There is nobody to blame except for himself. Accept that fact that your son made a mistake.