Hancock's father. Valid lawsuit against the restaruant?

Question

I say no, can't we take responsibility for our own actions. I hope the judge throws this case out immediately.

Answer 1

I just read this article and it really fired me up.

This is the problem that plagues our current society. We as a whole, seem to hold the belief that the maladies and wrongs we create can be traced back to some egregious error by someone else; therefore making it their fault. This society has lost its sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Is his father implying that the restaraunt held him down and force-fed him booze, then dragged him into his SUV, taped his cellphone to his ear, planted some weed, and then tied a brick to the accelerater?? Because, if not, it sounds to me that there were a series of choices made by HIS SON that directly lead to his death.

On top of trying to sue the bar, this jackass wants to sue the owner of the borken down car and the tow truck operator for being on the road!! C'mon, people ... this type of behavior is what is crippling our society. We wonder why no one will stop to help someone in need or in trouble. Because there are people like this wiating in the wings for something to go wrong, then blame you.

Maybe the one who should be getting sued is his father for not teaching his son to refrain from getting behind the wheel and flying down a highway after chugging booze all night.

I am sorry that your son died; it is tragic and sad and I sympathize with your loss. BUT ... it was his choices that led to his death and thus it is HIS FAULT -- not the bar owner; not the tow truck driver; not Elvis. Your son chose; your son gambled; your son lost. Don't tarnish his memory by dragging out some bullshit lawsuit to try and justify your loss.

Answer 2

I do not necessarily agree with Hancock's family suing under these pretenses BUT, it is a very valid lawsuit (that probably won't be thrown out)... By law (under the Dram Shop Liability Laws), the restaurant can absolutely be held responsible.... " The majority of states allow for recovery when the defendant knew (or should have known) the customer was intoxicated." My guess is, the family has had legal counsel/advice, and that's why they are doing this.

I do, however, feel that it is absolutely ludicrous that they are going after the towing company, the tow truck driver, etc.... that SHOULD be thrown out immediately.

Also, under Dram Shop - (and f.y.i.), if you have a party and someone has been drinking and leaves your party and injuries (or kills) himself or somebody else, you can be held responsible. (You gotta be careful these days... You can be sued for just about anything!... By anybody.)

See link below for further information:

Answer 3

no its not even worth anyones time. these kinds of things happen all the time. people get drunk at a bar, drive away thinking they are ok to drive, and get into an accident. and then they want to sue because the bartender gave him too much. people should know when they have had enough to drink and if they had too much, call a cab. its not the bartenders fault because hancock paid for all those drinks too. also, maybe he was too drunk to drive, but he was also high too which will make it very hard to win the case for hancocks father because they will just say he wouldnt have crashed if he wasnt high.

Answer 4

I say no also.
I think Hancock when he left thought that he was ok to drive but wasn't and was also on the cell phone.
I think it is sad for the family and hope the case is settled soon but as all cases it might take a few months!
One more thing I'll add I think he was offered a taxi but refused.

Answer 5

Good answer yeti.
What about a little Personal Responsibility? Just place the blame on others. Why not sue the cab companies for not being there to offer him a ride.
Something tells me this isn't the first time this guy got behind the wheel drunk. The whole thing is very sad.

Answer 6

Not even close. Thats the restaraunts business. They sell, people buy. Hancock was a grown man. He should've known his limits, otherwise he shouldn't have drank. Not to mention, if he knew he was gonna drink, why didn't he have a plan for a ride home? I'm sure he had plenty of friends who would have picked him up to save him from jeopardizing his career. I feel for his family, but he gambled his life, instead of making the right decision.

Answer 7

He does have a case against the restaurant and it's owners since it is against Missouri law to serve alcohol to an intoxicated individual. As for the rest of the people named in the lawsuit I think that part of it is stupid and just shows that the family is doing this solely for the money.

Answer 8

No way.All the Hancock family wants is money.Josh told the restaruant he wasn't going to be driving and it wasn't the truck or car being towed fault.The family is blaming everybody but Josh.

Answer 9

Sorry troll, medical doctors do no longer provide a tetanus shot only considering you got here into touch with rusty metallic. the theory you prefer a tetanus shot for stepping on a rusty nail isn't relatively precise -- it isn't the rust that activates the shot, that's the actuality that the nail replaced into on the floor and grimy.

Answer 10

Absolutely not! Last time I checked Hancock was an adult and he should be able to make good decisions. He did not and you have to live or die by the decisions you choose to make. May we all learn a hard lesson by his death.