Hancock Lawsuit

[PadronMe]

You probably haven't heard yet but since his parents live here it was on the front of the sports page today.

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story....b=1&div=Sports

There is no way I can post how bad this pisses me off. So I'll leave it at that.

[mosesbotbol]

8.77 grams of pot and a glass pipe? Oh, I forgot it was the Major Leagues.

[baglorious]

I don't agree with it for various reasons, but I think there are a few reasons it isn't that unreasonable...

First, lawsuits for responsibility of bars/restaurants are not a new thing. I'm not saying I agree with all of them (and, in fact, I'm fairly sure I don't agree with the whole idea except for in extreme circumstances), but legally, lawsuits like this have been around for years. There certainly is some legitimacy to the idea that if an establishment serves someone to the point that they're visibly loaded, they shouldn't just let them walk out the door (presumably to a car) without taking some action or bearing some responsibility as to what happens to them or others. Not suggesting it isn't primarily (or almost entirely) the fault of the drinker... but if it is 98% the fault of the drinker, there's still that 2% to deal with.

Again, not saying I agree with that as a general rule... but it isn't a new concept, and high-profile restaurants/bars are aware of it, and should have some sort of serving policy.

Secondly... imagine if the person who slammed into the back of the stalled car / tow truck wasn't intoxicated at all? Would we all be pissed at the stalled person for not pushing their car off to the side, or would we agree that the tow truck should have had substantial flares/flashers, etc. out to make sure it is clear that there's a stalled car in the left lane of an interstate highway? We don't know the specific facts as to whether the towtruck had flashing lights and such, but I think we'd agree that if they didn't have adequate lights or flashers in place, we'd all think they could be held responsible for that. So, if the towtruck driver is being negligent or careless, he's being negligent or careless whether he's hit by a drunk or sober person. (Not knowing the facts, of course, we don't know whether those things were there and Hancock missed them because he was drunk... but if they weren't adequate, whether he's drunk or sober shouldn't make a difference.)

So, the fact that Hancock was absolutely blasted out of his mind makes the situation (in my opinion) pretty much his fault... but I don't think the lawsuit is entirely ridiculous, if certain facts are as the dad's lawsuit claims them to be.

I'd prefer not to see this suit filed. As a matter of principle, Hancock made the choices he made, and most likely did so habitually, and his dad should accept that without trying to make other people pay. But if we don't know the facts, there simply might be more to it.

[DriftyGypsy]

I am guessing they don't know who sold him the drugs or the pipe otherwise they should also be named in the lawsuit.