Talk about grasping at straws

[casablanca1]

You see that is where I fail to see your point. I do not see how a bartender is responsible. He is doing a job making drinks. He is not a doctor and not able to know BA of his customer. Some people can be way over the legal limit and never show any signs of drunkenness. My brother can have a BA of 2.0 and you would not ever know it and I have personally seen him get pulled over and tested and pass yet I also know how much he has had to drink. Who is at fault if he has an accident ? I do not follow your logic.

It's not my logic, really, it's just the way the law works. It's possible, if you try, to prove that no one is ever responsible for anything - or that everyone is responsible for everything. Either the ape at the end of your ancestry was the source of your alcoholism gene or we are all responsible for caring for our drunken bretheren. That's great for endless philosophic wrangling, but lousy for ordering a society. So we have a legal system that splits the difference, decides what's the most reasonable interpretation of various situations and assigns blame/responsibility to more than one person in some situations. Yes, the most blame lies with the person who actually does X, but those around him/her have some possible culpability.

As far as older less then well maintained vehicles so you would rather see that person get their car off your road and let them draw welfare because they earn minimum wages and are trying to keep on working and not draining the system ? Public transport is very unreliable and not always readily available. Sorry but they have a right to use the same roads I do.

Anyone driving an unsafe vehicle does not have the right to do so on the same roads we do; it's illegal to operate such a vehicle. If caught, they will be pulled over and the car impounded, and they will be arrested for driving without insurance, since a car that bad can't be insured. I know all about public transportation and its sorry state in the US, but driving an unsafe car is the same as driving drunk. You may not have the impaired judgement of a drunk, but your car's condition impairs your ability to execute that judgement.

 

[SharkyX]

And what if it's a new problem that has developed that you weren't previoulsy aware of as this had been the first time it manifested itself? What if up until now his car had been relatively problem free and had an average reliability?

Where do you draw that line in the sand?

 

[Psyfalcon]

Where did this say it was an unmaintained car?

As I read it, he was spun avoiding another car. This introduces numerous stresses not encountered in normal driving.

For all I can tell, he spun off the road, through a glass factory puncturing all 4 tires and cutting the belts on his engine, then spun back onto the road!

 

[SharkyX]

Another thing... would ****head still be alive if he'd worn his seatbelt? clearly says he was not wearing his seatbelt when he had his accident... he might still be alive if he'd been wearing it.

The lawsuit should probably also include his parents (hey they can sue themselves for all they are worth!) for being negligent in teaching there son the importance of wearing a seatbelt.

 

[Aussie Red]

Another thing... would ****head still be alive if he'd worn his seatbelt? clearly says he was not wearing his seatbelt when he had his accident... he might still be alive if he'd been wearing it.

The lawsuit should probably also include his parents (hey they can sue themselves for all they are worth!) for being negligent in teaching there son the importance of wearing a seatbelt.

Yes and how about following the law ?? I agree sue themselves. Quit blaming others for your own stupidity would apply here.

 

[Charliesmommy]

OK, I've been trying to ignore this thread because I am a paralegal and I sue people every day for similar things and I get tired of defending myself for it, BUT - here goes:

I am not familiar with Missouri law but in Indiana (and I assume it is very much the same in Missouri) the law holds that the establishment is responsible for the negligent act of an intoxicated person if they serve alcohol to that intoxicated person. Why? Because when you are intoxicated, your judgement is impaired (hence driving drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and talking on the cell while driving). By serving alcohol, the establishment agrees that they are aware of this and they agree to substitute their judgement for your own and to "cut you off" if they feel you are intoxicated. Yes, many people can drink 10 drinks, be WAY over the legal limit and not appear intoxicated, however, a bartender should know that, just because someone can hold their liquor, if they drink several drinks, they are intoxicated, regardless of appearance.

The law also holds that a motor vehicle that is driven on public roads must be in good working order AND that if a vehicle should become disabled, it is the duty of the driver to keep the vehicle from becoming a hazard to oncoming motorists, by moving it off the roadway, putting out flares, whatever is necessary.

Do I think this drunk-driving idiot is responsible for this accident? YES, however, if he were my kid, I'd be pretty **** pissed at the bar that served him drink after drink and then let him drive away. I know they offered him a cab (which only proves that they DID know he was intoxicated) but HIS JUDGEMENT WAS IMPAIRED AND HE SAID NO. At that point, they should have called the police and reported that an intoxicated person was getting into a car and getting ready to drive. He would have been arrested, no accident, no death and no lawsuit.

 

[SeniorPetLover]

I'm not sure if the stalled car was liscensed in Missouri, but if it was then I think they are inspected annually and must pass a safety test. That is the way that it used to be...there were places set up to do vehichle inspections and then you were issued a sticker. I haven't lived in Missouri for a while, so it may have changed...if it is still procedure, then there should be no way that the car owner should be held liable for his vehichle's failure unless they include the company that did his inspection in the lawsuit...the thing is that just because it is legal to make such allegations, it doesn't mean that it is right to...I think the ultimate responsibility for the entire chain of events lies with the driver himself...he knew when he walked into the bar how to set his own limits and he knew when he climbed behind the wheel the risks he was taking...he declined a ride home...I have a 22 year-old daughter and I have never told her to depend on a bartender to decide when enough was enough but I have told her to never drive after drinking and to call me...if she did drive and she was killed, would I be devastated? Yes, but the only person I could hold responsible for her actions would be her...every decision has a reprecussion and we all need to understand that...I have worked hard for her to understand it...the lawsuit is frivilous in my opinion, but sadly, I am sure that the man will profit from his son's death because the legal system loves these sorts of cases...it is unfortunate all the way around, but thank goodness the boy didn't kill anyone else...there was plenty of opportunity and those would have been the people that I would have felt sorry for...

 

[sparks19]

OK, I've been trying to ignore this thread because I am a paralegal and I sue people every day for similar things and I get tired of defending myself for it, BUT - here goes:

I am not familiar with Missouri law but in Indiana (and I assume it is very much the same in Missouri) the law holds that the establishment is responsible for the negligent act of an intoxicated person if they serve alcohol to that intoxicated person. Why? Because when you are intoxicated, your judgement is impaired (hence driving drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and talking on the cell while driving). By serving alcohol, the establishment agrees that they are aware of this and they agree to substitute their judgement for your own and to "cut you off" if they feel you are intoxicated. Yes, many people can drink 10 drinks, be WAY over the legal limit and not appear intoxicated, however, a bartender should know that, just because someone can hold their liquor, if they drink several drinks, they are intoxicated, regardless of appearance.

The law also holds that a motor vehicle that is driven on public roads must be in good working order AND that if a vehicle should become disabled, it is the duty of the driver to keep the vehicle from becoming a hazard to oncoming motorists, by moving it off the roadway, putting out flares, whatever is necessary.

Do I think this drunk-driving idiot is responsible for this accident? YES, however, if he were my kid, I'd be pretty **** pissed at the bar that served him drink after drink and then let him drive away. I know they offered him a cab (which only proves that they DID know he was intoxicated) but HIS JUDGEMENT WAS IMPAIRED AND HE SAID NO. At that point, they should have called the police and reported that an intoxicated person was getting into a car and getting ready to drive. He would have been arrested, no accident, no death and no lawsuit.

IT WAS BEING LOADED ONTO A TOW TRUCK..... a tow truck has flashing lights.... what else was needed? dancing girls and loud music and a big blinking sign in the middle of the road that says "DANGER DANGER KEEP YOUR **** EYES ON THE ROAD"? AND the vehicle could have very well been off the road.... drunk drivers tend to swerve in and out of the lines... especially before an accident that KILLS THEM.

AH... I'm just so sick of people defending the actions of DRUNK DRIVERS. There is NOOOOOO excuse. It's not anyone else's fault and the law stating that someone else is responsible for you being a dumb a$$ is just as stupid as driving drunk. at how many drinks are you considered drunk? I know people that get drunk off of ONE. Like the commercial says "Even buzzed driving is drunk driving" Perhaps they should just start impounding cars the moment they pull up to an establishment that serves alcohol because everyone else is responsible for stupid people now. When did it become someone else's fault that you are a MORON and can't act responsibly.

 

[Charliesmommy]

at how many drinks are you considered drunk?

I don't know about Missouri. In Indiana it is if you have .08 BAC, which varies depending on your body weight, but generally about 3 drinks.

 

[Charliesmommy]

IT WAS BEING LOADED ONTO A TOW TRUCK..... a tow truck has flashing lights.... what else was needed?

According to the law, what is required is warning several feet before the disabled vehicle, not at the disabled vehicle. That is why they are supposed to use flares.

 

[Dreeza]

You see that is where I fail to see your point. I do not see how a bartender is responsible. He is doing a job making drinks. He is not a doctor and not able to know BA of his customer. Some people can be way over the legal limit and never show any signs of drunkenness. My brother can have a BA of 2.0 and you would not ever know it and I have personally seen him get pulled over and tested and pass yet I also know how much he has had to drink. Who is at fault if he has an accident ? I do not follow your logic.
As far as older less then well maintained vehicles so you would rather see that person get their car off your road and let them draw welfare because they earn minimum wages and are trying to keep on working and not draining the system ? Public transport is very unreliable and not always readily available. Sorry but they have a right to use the same roads I do.

:hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: I am soo with you on every point you have made so far.


I brought this up to my mom, and she said something I didn't even think of, which is an INCREDIBLY good point.


This is a famous athlete we are dealing with...fine, I am making assumptions, but most famous people tend to get on a high horse and stay there, thinking they are above everyone else. How on earth is some 'measly' bartender going to convince mr. bigshot he cannot drive home?

And to stop serving him drinks ::before:: he was 2x the legal limit?! Ha, Hancock would prob still be alive, but he also probably would have gotten the bartender fired...or prob sued him for not getting him drunk enough...

ALSO, had that tow truck NOT been there....while I do not know how the accident happened...what then? Maybe he woulda swerved, not hit anything, and then somehow gotten BACK on the rode and kept driving drunk....most likely getting into a crash at a later time, which would probably results in him living, but some innocent people dying (since that is how it always seems to work).

 

[Aussie Red]

OK, I've been trying to ignore this thread because I am a paralegal and I sue people every day for similar things and I get tired of defending myself for it, BUT - here goes:

I am not familiar with Missouri law but in Indiana (and I assume it is very much the same in Missouri) the law holds that the establishment is responsible for the negligent act of an intoxicated person if they serve alcohol to that intoxicated person. Why? Because when you are intoxicated, your judgement is impaired (hence driving drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and talking on the cell while driving). By serving alcohol, the establishment agrees that they are aware of this and they agree to substitute their judgement for your own and to "cut you off" if they feel you are intoxicated. Yes, many people can drink 10 drinks, be WAY over the legal limit and not appear intoxicated, however, a bartender should know that, just because someone can hold their liquor, if they drink several drinks, they are intoxicated, regardless of appearance.



The law also holds that a motor vehicle that is driven on public roads must be in good working order AND that if a vehicle should become disabled, it is the duty of the driver to keep the vehicle from becoming a hazard to oncoming motorists, by moving it off the roadway, putting out flares, whatever is necessary.

Do I think this drunk-driving idiot is responsible for this accident? YES, however, if he were my kid, I'd be pretty **** pissed at the bar that served him drink after drink and then let him drive away. I know they offered him a cab (which only proves that they DID know he was intoxicated) but HIS JUDGEMENT WAS IMPAIRED AND HE SAID NO. At that point, they should have called the police and reported that an intoxicated person was getting into a car and getting ready to drive. He would have been arrested, no accident, no death and no lawsuit.

and that leads to another law suit you see because here the police more likely then not would not respond until after he was out on the road. You have a wait time of up to an hour for a violent crime here so this would surely be given less priority so now we sue the police? And ok I understand the laws too having studied it but I still maintain that we as a nation would be far better served by making one responsible for ones self. IE. Anyone knows what alcohol will do and everyone who has passed a drivers test also knows the laws regarding drinking and driving and driving without a seat belt. Do we excuse him because he was impaired ? Do we excuse him for getting impaired ? Well I guess we do and we hang it on someone other then the one who did it. I am sorry but if this were my brother who I love dearly I would stand against him. I just hope that the judge who has this brought before him sees it this way as well and throws it out. I also hope the the ones being sued counter sue.

 

[jess2416]

If people know the laws about driving while impaired, and still do it anyway...they deserve whatever happens....

 

[Dizzy]

We actually have the right to take their keys off them here, and we legally are not allowed to serve anyone who is drunk...

However, pubs are not held responsible for drink driving.

 

[sparks19]

I don't know about Missouri. In Indiana it is if you have .08 BAC, which varies depending on your body weight, but generally about 3 drinks.

Ok so since the bar can't test your BAC.... should everyone be cut off at three drinks? what about that one person that gets drunk off of one or two.... How is the bar to know?

 

[blue]

The fact they sued everyone in a 4-mile radius of the accident makes it look bad, but the restaurant issue is potentially valid.

It's understood that for the entire 31/2 hours that Josh Hancock was there that he was handed drinks," Keith Kantack, a lawyer for Dean Hancock, said. "It's our understanding that from the moment Josh Hancock entered Mike Shannon's that night that he was never without a drink."

If it can be proven that the restaurant kept serving him drinks after he clearly appeared to be drunk, the restaurant is in huge trouble, and not just of the 'fork over lots of cash' kind.

And I kind of see the point about the guy with the Geo. The last Geo rolled off the line in 1998 and they weren't big, sturdy cars to start with. A car shouldn't stall when it gets cut off in traffic. That is a traffic hazzard. I see plenty of nasty, disintegrating cars on the road, and they are a legit problem.

Im sueing you for your failure to grasp "Personal Responsability Standards."

 

[Renee750il]

Okay . . . a little understanding of WHY there are laws that leave the establishments that serve alcohol holding the bag.

First: Legislators are very often attorneys by trade. Attorneys also have HUGE, well funded lobbies in state legislatures.

Next: All too often the person who is REALLY at fault has no real attachable assets, so suing them is pretty much an exercise in futility for the lawyer who makes a living from collecting a third of the damages collected.

Further: There is a concept known as "deep pockets." When you sue, you look for the deep pockets - the entity that has enough assets to make it worthwhile for that type of attorney to sue.

See where this is going?

The attorney lobby has enough clout to influence state legislatures to pass laws re-assigning responsibility from the person behind the wheel, who more often than not, doesn't have the proverbial pot to p!ss in, to restaurants and bars where the pockets are far deeper - not only theirs, but the insurance policies they find themselves stuck buying to cover this sort of lame liability.

In other words, it's all about greed.

 

[blue]

Well I guess since I'm always an a$$ any way I'll state my opinion.
It's refreshing to see a case where ONLY the dumb drunk got killed.

I know Im way late to the game here but...










Darwin Award!!

 

[casablanca1]

Im sueing you for your failure to grasp "Personal Responsability Standards."

Okay. But you might have a hard time with an imaginary concept in court.

 

[Renee750il]

Okay. But you might have a hard time with an imaginary concept in court.

Not really. Our courts deal with an imaginary concept every day . . . . they refer to it casually as "Justice."